s 


BR  110  . B75  1923 
Brown,  William  Adams,  1865 
1943  . 


✓ 


l 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/imperialisticrelOObrow 


f 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 

AND 

THE  RELIGION  OF  DEMOCRACY 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 

AND  THE 

RELIGION  OF  DEMOCRACY 

A  STUDY  IN  SOCIAL  PSYCHOLOGY 


BY 

t/ 

WILLIAM  ADAMS  BROWN,  Ph.D.,  DJX 

AUTHOR  OF 

“CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY  IN  OUTLINE”  “THE  CHURCH  IN  AMERICA” 

ETC. 


V 


4. 

NEW  YORK 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER’S  SONS 

1923 


7 


t 


MADE  AND  PRINTED  IN  GREAT  BRITAIN  BY  MORRISON  AND  GIBB  LTD. 


EDINBURGH 


TO 

CHRISTIANS  WHO  DIFFER 


V 


PREFACE 


THE  subject  to  which  the  following  pages 
are  devoted  has  occupied  my  thoughts 
for  many  years.  In  these  days  when 
there  is  so  much  talk  of  unity,  it  is  more  than 
ever  necessary  that  we  should  give  tin^e  to  the 
study  of  differences.  Especially  is  it  important 
that  we  should  learn  to  distinguish  between  the 
differences  which  are  due  to  temporary  or  re¬ 
movable  causes,  and  those  which  are  rooted  in 
human  nature,  or,  what  comes  to  much  the  same 
thing,  are  the  result  of  conditions  in  the  environ¬ 
ment  which  are  likely  to  recur  from  age  to  age. 

A  notable  contribution  to  the  study  of  these 
more  deep-seated  differences  was  made  by  Pro¬ 
fessor  William  James  in  his  well-known  book  on 
The  Varieties  of  the  Religious  Experience.  The 
present  inquiry  takes  up  the  discussion  where 
Professor  James  leaves  off.  It  deals  with  the 
attitude  of  religious  people  to  society  and  the 
institutions  it  creates — a  subject  which  James 
expressly  excluded  from  his  own  consideration. 
But  in  spite  of  this  difference  of  immediate 


VI  l 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


•  •  • 
vm 

objective,  the  underlying  interest  is  the  same. 
Like  Professor  James,  I  shall  study  varieties  of 
the  religious  experience,  in  the  hope  of  clarifying 
our  understanding  of  the  nature  of  religion. 

So  far  as  I  am  aware,  the  particular  classifica¬ 
tion  here  suggested  has  not  been  used  in  the 
precise  form  in  which  I  use  it  by  any  previous 
writer.  If  I  am  in  error  in  this  I  shall  be  glad  to 
be  corrected.  In  any  case,  it  is  evident  that  a 
generalization  of  so  sweeping  a  character  will 
need  to  be  rigorously  tested  before  it  can  be 
accepted.  I  could  have  wished  to  make  my  own 
test  more  thorough  and  detailed  than  has  been 
possible  in  the  time  hitherto  at  my  disposal. 
But  it  has  seemed  to  me  that  the  advantages  of 
early  criticism  by  others  interested  in  the  subject 
would  more  than  outweigh  the  disadvantages 
necessarily  connected  with  the  presentation  of 
so  important  a  thesis  in  a  condensed  form,  and 
without  the  critical  apparatus  by  which  the 
scholar  is  accustomed  to  fortify  his  conclusions. 

Of  the  inadequacy  of  the  last  chapter  I  am 
fully  conscious.  The  study  of  religious  differences 
makes  us  more  than  ever  aware  of  our  need  of 
some  principle  of  unity,  and  the  questions  where 
such  a  principle  is  to  be  found  and  how  it  is 
to  be  recognized  deserve  a  more  thoroughgoing 
treatment  than  I  have  been  able  to  give  them 
in  this  book.  Men  of  every  type  of  religious 


PREFACE 


IX 


experience  are  forced  sooner  or  later  to  come 
to  terms  with  historic  religion.  The  democrat 
especially,  with  his  forward  look  and  his  catholic 
sympathies,  needs  a  firm  grounding  for  his  faith 
in  history  so  that  he  may  feel  his  unity  with  men 
of  other  ages  and  of  other  types.  No  one  has  a 
more  vital  interest  than  the  democrat  in  the  great 
personality  from  whom  Christianity  takes  its 
name,  or  in  the  unique  literature  which  preserves 
his  life -story  and  mediates  his  present  spirit. 
None  needs  a  clearer  appreciation  of  the  fact  that 
the  God  of  this  age  is  the  God  of  all  the  ages,  and 
that,  in  this  changing  world,  progress,  so  far  from 
being  inconsistent  with  permanence,  is  the  way  in 
which  we  make  our  own  the  eternal  values. 

The  substance  of  the  following  pages  was  de¬ 
livered  as  the  Martha  Upton  Lectures  in  Religion 
for  1922,  at  Manchester  College,  Oxford,  under  the 
title  “  Three  Great  Religions/'  Parts  of  Chapters 
I.,  III.,  IV.,  and  V.  were  delivered  at  King's 
College  of  the  University  of  London,  in  the  fall  of 
the  same  year,  under  the  title  “  The  Religion  of 
Democracy."  The  main  thesis  to  which  the  work 
is  devoted  was  presented  to  the  Aristotelian 
Society  of  London  in  January  1923,  in  a 
paper  entitled  “The  Problem  of  Classification  in 
Religion." 

I  wish  to  express  my  thanks  to  the  Faculty  of 
Manchester  College ;  to  the  Divinity  Faculty 


X 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


of  the  University  of  London  ;  and  to  the  authorities 
of  King's  College  for  the  opportunity  their  in¬ 
vitations  have  afforded  me  to  clarify  my  own 
thinking ;  and  to  the  audiences  whose  sym¬ 
pathetic  following  of  the  lectures  during  their 
delivery  has  encouraged  me  to  hope  that  the  line 
of  thought  they  present  may  prove  of  interest 
to  a  wider  public. 

WILLIAM  ADAMS  BROWN. 


New  York  City, 
September  1923. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  PROBLEM  OF  VARIATION  IN  RELIGION 

1.  Need  of  a  New  Study  of  Religious  Types  . 

2.  The  Phenomena  needing  Explanation 

3.  The  View  which  explains  Religious  Differences 

AS  DUE  TO  THE  CONTRAST  BETWEEN  TRUE  AND 

False  Religion  ...... 

4.  The  View  which  regards  them  as  Steps  in  the 

Development  of  a  Single  All-embracing  Religion 

5.  Psychological  Classifications  of  Religion,  Indi¬ 

vidualistic  and  Social  .... 

6.  A  Suggested  Classification  .... 


CHAPTER  II 

RELIGION  AS  PERSONAL  EXPERIENCE  AND 
AS  HISTORIC  PROCESS 

1.  Imperialism,  Individualism,  and  Democracy  as  Types 

of  Religious  Experience  .... 

2.  What  is  meant  by  Religion  :  Its  Threefold  Aspect 

as  Belief,  Feeling,  and  Action 

3.  The  Permanent  and  the  Variable  in  the  Idea  of 

Deity.  God  as  the  Realized  Ideal 

4.  Corresponding  Contrasts  in  the  Religious  Attitude. 

Legalistic  and  Mystical  Religion  . 

xi 


PAGE 

I 

8 

12 

14 

18 

26 


34 

37 

39 


45 


Xll 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


5.  Different  Ways  in  which  Religion  finds  Expression 

in  Action  Ceremonial  and  Ethical  Religion. 
The  Permanent  Basis  of  Sacramentarianism  . 

6.  The  Significance  of  the  Church  as  the  Institu¬ 

tion  of  Religion.  Its  Fivefold  Function  in 
Worship,  Education,  Discipline,  Service,  and 
Propaganda  ...... 

7.  The  Creative  Element  in  Religion.  The  Contribu¬ 

tion  of  History  to  Religion.  Institutional 
Religion  as  Enfranchising  and  as  Limiting 


CHAPTER  III 

IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION:  ITS  NATURE 
AND  VARIETIES 

1.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  as  an  Example  of 

Imperialistic  Religion.  The  Church  as  Medi¬ 
ator  between  God  and  Man 

2.  The  Church  as  Regulator  of  Belief.  Different 

Attitudes  toward  Layman  and  Specialist 

3.  The  Church  as  Director  of  the  Conscience.  The 

Penitential  System  and  its  Significance 

4.  The  Church  as  Confraternity  of  Service  and  as 

Centre  of  a  World-wide  Propaganda 

5.  Other  Examples  of  Imperialistic  Religion.  The 

Religion  of  the  State  and  of  the  Militant 
Sect  ....... 

6.  Motives  to  which  Imperialistic  Religion  appeals. 

Its  Provision  for  Men  of  Other  Types.  Incon¬ 
sistency  of  its  Representatives 

7.  Strength  and  Weakness  of  Imperialistic  Religion. 

Its  Place  in  the  History  of  Religion 


PAGE 

48 

53 

58 

64 

7i 

75 

79 

83 

87 


92 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  INDIVIDUALISTIC  PROTEST  AGAINST 

IMPERIALISM 

1.  What  is  meant  by  Individualistic  Religion.  Posi¬ 

tive  and  Negative  Individualism  . 

2.  Individualism  as  the  Religion  of  Protest.  Different 

Forms  which  this  Protest  may  take 

3.  Evangelical  Protestantism  as  a  Form  of  Negative 

Individualism.  Parallels  in  the  Roman  Church. 
Buddhism  as  the  Extreme  Form  of  Negative 
Individualism  ...... 

4.  Examples  of  Positive  Individualism.  Mystical 

Religion  as  a  Form  of  Positive  Individualism  . 

5.  The  Puritan  Combination  of  Positive  and  Negative 

Individualism  ...... 

6.  The  Monastery  and  the  Sect  as  Social  Expres¬ 

sions  of  Individualistic  Religion  . 

7.  The  Sectarian  Compromise  between  Individualism 

and  Imperialism.  . 

8.  Strength  and  Weakness  of  Individualistic  Religion. 

Its  Psychological  Basis  and  its  Social  Signi¬ 
ficance  ....... 

/ 

CHAPTER  V 

DEMOCRATIC  RELIGION 

1.  What  is  meant  by  Democratic  Religion 

2.  Democratic  Religion  distinguished  from  the  Re¬ 

ligion  of  Equality  ;  from  the  Religion  of  the 
Majority.  The  Place  of  Progress  in  Democratic 
Religion  ....... 

3.  Democratic  Religion  in  Contrast  to  Imperialism 

and  to  Individualism  ..... 


Xlll 

PAGE 

95 

98 

106 

no 

116 

1 18 

125 

129 

136 

142 

,148 


Lrt 


XIV 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


4.  Illustrations  of  Democratic  Religion  outside  the 
Churches.  The  Religious  Spirit  in  Science  ;  in 
Education  ;  in  Philanthropy  ;  in  Industry  ;  in 
Politics  ....... 

.  Illustrations  of  Democratic  Religion  within  the 
Churches.  The  New  Theology.  The  Enlarging 
Conception  of  Christian  Missions.  The  Move¬ 
ment  for  Christian  Unity  . 

6.  The  Institutional  Expression  of  Democratic 
Religion  ....... 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  UNIFYING  PRINCIPLE  IN  RELIGION 

1.  Review  of  the  Ground  traversed.  The  Resulting 

Questions— (a)  as  to  Personal  Responsibility  ; 
(Jb)  as  to  Attitude  toward  Others  . 

2.  Tradition,  Intuition,  and  Experiment  as  Influences 

determining  Personal  Faith.  Different  Use 

MADE  OF  THESE  BY  IMPERIALIST,  INDIVIDUALIST,  AND 

Democrat.  Place  of  the  Creative  Experience 
in  each  ...... 

3.  The  Problem  of  Relationship.  Attitudes  excluded. 

Need  of  a  Unifying  Principle — (a)  for  Self- 
Criticism  ;  (b)  for  Social  Verification.  The 
Creative  Experience  as  such  a  Principle  ✓ 

4.  The  Creative  Experience  as  a  Principle  of  Unity 

within  Christianity  . 

5.  The  Creative  Experience  as  a  Test  in  the  Conflict 

of  Religions  ...... 

6.  Consequences  for  our  Study.  Creative  Elements 

in  Imperialism  and  in  Individualism.  The  Place 
of  the  Creative  Experience  in  Democratic 
Religion.  Democracy  as  the  Religion  of  Hope 


PAGE 

156 

166 

172 

179 

133 

195 

201 

207 

21  I 


INDEX  . 


219 


CHAPTER  I 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  VARIATION  IN  RELIGION 

t.  Need  of  a  New  Study  of  Religious  Types 

THE  problem  which  we  are  to  consider 
in  the  pages  that  follow  is  one  of  the 
oldest,  one  of  the  most  interesting,  and 
one  of  the  most  difficult  in  the  study  of  religion. 
It  is  the  problem  of  the  origin  and  of  the  signifi¬ 
cance  of  differing  religious  types.  If  religion  be 
the  most  important  thing  in  human  life,  as 
multitudes  of  men  have  believed,  how  comes  it 
that  we  differ  so  widely  as  to  what  religion  is  ? 
If  there  is  really  a  God  who  reveals  Himself  to 
man,  why  does  He  not  make  His  presence  known 
in  ways  which  cannot  be  misinterpreted  ?  Why 
are  men  still  at  variance  in  their  view  of  what 
God  has  revealed  and  what  He  wants  from  His 
worshippers  ? 

I  am  going  to  propose  a  new  answer  to  this 
question.  At.  least  I  am  going  to  suggest  a  new 
angle  from  which  some  of  the  old  answers  may 
be  approached.  But  before  I  state  what  that 
angle  is  and  explain  my  reasons  for  making  it 
my  point  of  departure,  it  may  be  of  interest  if  I 


2 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


take  a  moment  or  two  to  explain  how  I  have 
been  led  to  make  this  inquiry. 

In  the  course  of  my  work  as  a  teacher  it  has 
been  my  duty  for  many  years  to  study  religious 
experience,  under  the  heads  by  which  it  is  de¬ 
scribed  in  the  familiar  text-books  in  theology — 
such  terms  as  natural  and  revealed,  Catholic  and 
Protestant,  Traditionalist  and  Modernist,  mystical 
and  ethical  religion.  But  the  historic  situations 
which  I  have  been  called  upon  to  analyse  have 
proved  too  complicated  to  be  treated  in  this  way. 
Too  many  facts  remained  unaccounted  for.  Too 
many  were  inconsistent  with  the  explanations 
which  were  given  of  them.  I  was  forced  to 
realize  that  from  the  point  of  view  of  scientific 
theory,  our  existing  classifications  needed  to  be 
restudied. 

Then  the  war  came,  and  for  the  moment 
practice  crowded  out  theory.  Every  man's 
attention  was  turned  to  the  needs  of  the  critical 
moment.  It  fell  to  my  lot  during  the  years  of 
the  war,  and  the  scarcely  less  trying  years  that 
have  succeeded  it,  to  try  to  help  many  different 
kinds  of  Christians  to  do  work  together.  The 
merely  theoretical  interest  which  I  had  hitherto 
had  in  the  problem  of  classification  in  religion 
was  now  reinforced  by  motives  of  the  most 
practical  kind.  But  my  new  experience  led  me 
to  the'  old  conclusion.  The  names  by  which 
men  called  themselves  did  not  always  correspond 
to  what  they  really  were.  The  social  groupings 
which  divided  them  as  Catholic  and  Protestant, 


PROBLEM  OF  VARIATION  IN  RELIGION  3 


Presbyterian  and  Episcopalian,  Baptist  and  Uni¬ 
tarian,  by  no  means  always  expressed  the  trend 
of  their  dominant  interests  and  sympathies. 
You  could  not  tell  beforehand  how  a  man  called 
an  Episcopalian  would  feel  or  how  he  would  act. 
And  the  same  was  true  of  each  of  the  other 
sectarian  and  denominational  names. 

Yet  we  were  constantly  acting  as  if  we  could. 
We  often  judged  men,  not  by  what  they  were, 
but  by  what,  according  to  their  party  name,  they 
ought  to  be.  And  this  habit  gave  rise  to  manifold 
misunderstandings  and  bitternesses.  Many  of 
these  were  wholly  needless  ;  yet  they  shaped  party 
policy,  and  led  to  the  forming  of  plans  which,  in 
the  nature  of  the  case,  could  not  be  carried  out. 
For  practical  reasons,  therefore,  as  well  as  in  the 
interest  of  scientific  accuracy,  a  new  study  of 
religious  types  seemed  urgently  called  for. 

The  need  of  such  a  study  was  again  vividly 
brought  home  to  me  at  a  meeting  which  I  attended 
in  Copenhagen  during  the  summer  of  1922.  It 
had  been  called  by  the  World  Alliance  for  Inter¬ 
national  Friendship  through  the  Churches  to 
consider  the  existing  international  situation,  and 
to  see  what  could  be  done  about  uniting  the 
Churches  in  some  practicable  programme  on 
behalf  of  world  peace.  But  at  the  very  outset 
we  were  confronted  by  the  fact  of  difference. 
Not  only  was  there  no  international  organiza¬ 
tion  through  which  the  Churches  of  different 
countries  could  function  effectively,  but  the  re¬ 
ligious  forces  of  each  country  were  divided.  The 


4 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


English  Churches  were  separated  by  the  wide  gap 
between  the  Establishment  and  Nonconformity, 
and  the  Free  Churches  differed  among  themselves. 
The  denominationalism  of  American  Christianity 
has  long  been  a  byword.  Each  Continental 
Church  faced  in  its  own  way  the  fact  of  division. 
Nor  was  there  division  simply  in  the  sphere  of 
outward  organization  and  polity.  There  was 
lack  of  unity  on  fundamental  theoretical  ques¬ 
tions.  There  was  no  agreement,  for  example, 
on  such  a  question  as  this  :  Has  the  Church  any 
responsibility,  independently  of  the  State,  for 
determining  standards  of  social  and  political 
action,  or  should  it  confine  itself  to  the  cultiva¬ 
tion  of  the  purely  personal  religious  life  ?  In 
theory  we  came  together  as  Christians.  In 
theory  we  professed  to  be  adherents  of  one 
religion  and  worshippers  of  one  God.  But  in 
practice  we  had  not  yet  found  it  possible  to 
work  together  in  any  united  and  effective  way. 

Nor  was  this  the  whole  story.  One  great 
division  of  Christendom  was  conspicuous  by  its 
absence.  A  leading  Archbishop  of  the  Greek 
Church  attended  the  meeting  at  Copenhagen, 
but  no  Roman  Catholic  was  present.  This  was 
not  due  to  inadvertence.  Representatives  of 
the  Roman  Church  had  been  privately  sounded 
as  to  the  possibility  of  their  attendance.  It  was 
not  due  to  any  lack  of  interest  in  the  subject  to 
be  discussed.  Roman  Catholics  are  just  as  much 
concerned  to  secure  world  peace  as  Anglicans 
or  Presbyterians.  It  was  due  to  a  deep-seated 


PROBLEM  OF  VARIATION  IN  RELIGION  5 


difference  of  religious  conviction.  This  differ¬ 
ence  was  so  fundamental  that  the  representatives 
of  a  great  Church  were  unwilling  to  sit  around 
the  same  table,  in  discussion  with  their  fellow- 
Christians,  under  conditions  which  might  seem 
to  imply  equality  between  them. 

Obviously  this  is  a  fact  of  outstanding  im¬ 
portance.  It  raises  a  very  searching  question. 
When  for  centuries  religious  men  have  been 
unwilling  to  meet  face  to  face  in  the  common 
practice  of  the  rites  of  their  religion,  have  we  any 
right  to  regard  them  as  belonging  to  the  same 
religion  ?  Eminent  scholars  have  answered  this 
question  in  the  negative. 

Thus  Tiele,  in  his  Introduction  to  the  Study  of 
Religion  f  denies  that  we  have  any  right  to  speak 
of  Christianity  as  one  religion.  “  In  Christianity 
as  in  Buddhism/'  he  tells  us,  “  we  have  to  do, 
not  with  a  single  religion,  but  with  a  family  of 
religions,  which  to  be  sure  in  their  origin  and  in 
certain  general  principles  are  one  ;  but  for  the 
rest  are  at  most  points  widely  separated  and 
even  hostile,  one  to  the  other,  a  group  or  family 
of  religions,  like  the  Aryan  or  Semitic.  These 
groups,  which  we  call  the  Christian  and  Buddhist 
religions,  are  differentiated  from  other  groups  in 
that  they  are  still  conscious  of  a  common  origin 
and  relative  spiritual  relationship,  simply  because 
their  origin  has  fallen  in  historic  times,  while 
that  of  the  older  groups  belongs  to  the  pre¬ 
historic  period/' 

1  Einleitung  in  die  Religionswissenschaft,  Eng.  trans.,  p.  124. 


6 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


Sharply  as  this  view  contradicts  conventional 
opinion,  there  is  much  to  be  said  in  its  favour. 
When  we  contrast  the  different  forms  of  historic 
Christianity  with  one  another,  it  seems  impossible 
to  bring  them  all  under  a  single  name.  What  is 
there  in  common  between  the  contemplative 
religion  of  the  Russian  mystic  and  the  militant 
faith  of  an  ultramontane  Roman  Catholic  ? 
What  community  of  feeling  can  there  be  between 
the  high  Anglican,  devoted  to  liturgy  and  sacra¬ 
ment,  and  the  free  and  unconventional  evan¬ 
gelical  ?  What  a  shudder  the  very  name  Uni¬ 
tarian  calls  forth  in  some  Christians  who  have 
been  taught  to  regard  the  Trinity  as  the  articulus 
stantis  aut  cadentis  ecclesice  ! 

The  extent  and  wide  diversity  of  these  varia¬ 
tions  within  Christianity  have  been  described  by 
Dr.  McGiffert  in  an  impressive  passage  in  the 
Hibbert  Journal 1  as  follows  : 

“  From  the  beginning,  one  of  the  extra¬ 
ordinary  things  about  Christianity  has  been  its 
great  variety.  To  the  Apostle  Paul,  to  Ignatius 
of  Antioch,  and  to  thousands  of  believers  since, 
a  religion  of  redemption,  releasing  men  from  the 
trammels  of  the  world  and  sin  and  death,  and 
giving  them  the  power  of  an  endless  life.  To 
Justin  Martyr,  to  Pelagius,  to  Socinus,  a  revela¬ 
tion  of  God's  will  which  we  have  abundant  ability 
to  obey  if  we  but  choose,  and  obeying  which  we 
reap  the  fitting  reward.  To  Clement  of  Alex¬ 
andria,  to  Scotus  Erigena,  to  Frederick  William 
Hegel,  to  speculative  thinkers  of  every  age,  a 

1  “  Christianity  in  the  Light  of  its  History,”  July  1913,  p.  717  seq. 


PROBLEM  OF  VARIATION  IN  RELIGION  7 

philosophy  of  the  universe,  explaining  the 
whence  and  the  whither,  the  beginning  and  the 
end  of  all  things.  To  the  schoolmen,  both 
Catholic  and  Protestant,  the  acceptance  of  a 
series  of  propositions,  supposed  to  contain  final 
and  absolute  truth  touching  God  and  man  and 
the  universe.  To  St.  Bernard  and  Fenelon  and 
William  Law,  to  the  mystics  of  all  generations, 
the  transcendence  of  human  limitations  in  one¬ 
ness  with  the  divine.  To  St.  Francis  of  Assisi 
and  Thomas  a  Kempis,  and  many  a  lovely  spirit 
of  our  own  and  other  days,  the  imitation  of 
Christ  in  His  life  of  poverty,  humility,  and  love. 
To  Cyprian  and  Augustine  and  countless  Catholics, 
the  one  holy,  apostolic  Church,  an  ark  of  salva¬ 
tion,  alone  providing  escape  from  eternal  punish¬ 
ment.  To  Hildebrand  and  Innocent,  as  to 
modern  ultramontanists  in  general,  the  papal 
hierarchy,  ruler  of  the  nations  of  the  earth.  To 
Benedict  of  Nursia,  to  Boniface  the  Saxon 
Apostle,  to  not  a  few  missionaries  of  these  latter 
days,  a  great  civilizing  agency,  raising  whole 
peoples  from  ignorance  and  savagery  to  culture 
and  humaneness.  To  the  rationalist  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  the  religion  of  nature,  always 
one  and  unchanging,  the  worship  of  God  and  the 
pursuit  of  virtue.  To  a  growing  multitude  of 
Christians  of  our  own  day,  humanitarianism,  the 
service  of  one's  fellows  in  the  spirit  of  Jesus 
Christ." 

“  These,"  Dr.  McGiffert  goes  on  to  say, 
“  were  not  simply  different  phases  of  the  same 
faith ;  these  were  often  altogether  different 
faiths.  They  were  not  the  mere  development  of 
an  original  principle,  the  life  and  work  and 
teaching  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  :  they  were  many 


8 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


of  them  fresh  creations.  Their  secret  lay  in  the 
fact  that  Christianity  has  always  been  the  vital 
faith  of  individuals,  and  not  merely  a  public  or 
national  cult.  Out  of  varied  human  experiences, 
determined  by  character,  by  temperament,  by 
education,  by  example,  the  new  ways  of  looking 
at  things  arose.  Often  forces  entirely  alien  to 
Christianity  had  their  part  in  producing  them, 
and  few  of  them  would  have  been  recognized  by 
Jesus  Himself  as  an  interpretation  of  His  own 
faith  or  of  His  own  ideals/’ 

The  question  which  we  are  raising  is  not, 
then,  subsidiary  or  unimportant  :  it  touches  the 
very  heart  and  inner  shrine  of  religion.  It  is  not 
only  interesting  scientifically  as  a  problem  for 
the  mind.  It  is  not  only  important  practically, 
for  our  guidance  in  co-operative  endeavour.  It 
brings  us  face  to  face  with  the  central  problem 
of  all  religion,  the  problem  of  Revelation.  If, 
as  religion  assumes,  God  has  revealed  Himself  in 
a  permanent  and  authoritative  way,  how  do  we 
reconcile  this  fact  of  revelation  with  the  dis¬ 
crepancies  in  existing  religion  ?  In  the  conflict  of 
rival  interpretations,  how  can  we  tell  where  the 
truth  lies  ?  Our  study  may  not  furnish  us  with 
a  complete  answer  to  this  question.  But  it  may 
remove  some  present  difficulties  in  the  way  of 
such  an  answer. 

2.  The  Phenomena  needing  Explanation 

At  the  risk  of  going  over  familiar  ground,  it 
may  be  helpful  to  remind  ourselves  of  some 


PROBLEM  OF  VARIATION  IN  RELIGION  9 


of  the  present  outstanding  religious  differences. 
First  of  all  there  is  the  difference  between 
those  imposing  social  complexes  which  we  call 
the  historic  religions — the  rival  faiths  which 
divide  between  them  the  allegiance  of  most  of 
mankind,  and  which  are  represented  on  the 
missionary  maps  in  bold  contrasts  of  white, 
yellow,  green,  and  black.  In  contrast  to  one 
another,  each  of  these  faiths  represents  a  certain 
principle  of  unity.  The  Christian,  the  Moham¬ 
medan,  and  the  Buddhist  are  each  conscious  of 
an  ancestry,  of  traditions  and  of  a  literature, 
which  bind  them  to  their  co-religionists  and 
separate  them  from  the  members  of  rival  groups. 
Each  group  has  its  Bible,  which  its  members 
read.  Each  group  has  its  founder,  whom  all  its 
members  revere.  The  relation  of  these  historic 
unities  to  the  internal  differences  which  separate 
members  of  the  same  group  presents  difficulties 
— difficulties  which  we  will  discuss  later  on — 
but  the  unities  cannot  be  denied. 

Next  there  are  the  differences  which  appear 
within  the  different  religions.  These  differences 
are  of  two  kinds — differences  of  organization  and 
differences  of  conviction.  That  singular  phen¬ 
omenon  in  Protestantism  which  we  call  the 
denomination  is  a  religious  organization  which 
has  all  the  marks  of  a  complete  Church,  and  yet 
which  recognizes  other  similar  Churches  within 
the  saitie  religion.  Catholicism  has  its  religious 
orders  and  societies  that  cut  across  the  existing 
diocesan  organization,  and  make  room  within  the 


10 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


one  inclusive  Catholic  Church,  for  the  initiative 
and  rivalry  which  in  Protestantism  are  expressed 
through  independent  Churches.  In  the  United 
States,  where  denominationalism  has  been  carried 
farthest,  the  Census  of  1916  registers  nearly  two 
hundred  self-governing  and  practically  inde¬ 
pendent  bodies.  While  many  of  these  are  so 
small  as  to  be  negligible,  there  are  more  than 
fifty  that  number  over  fifty  thousand,  and  of 
families  that  approach  or  surpass  the  million 
there  are  eight. 

To  differences  of  organization  must  be  added 
differences  of  conviction  ;  and  the  two  by  no 
means  always  correspond.  As  the  peoples  of  the 
different  nations  and  States  are  divided  into 
parties,  so  all  these  different  Churches  and 
denominations  are  divided  into  schools.  There 
are  High  Churchmen  and  Low  Churchmen, 
Broad  Churchmen  and  Evangelicals,  Modernists 
and  Traditionalists,  Sacramentarians 1  and  those 
who  have  no  use  for  institutional  religion.  The 
views  of  each  of  these  groups  are  in  process  of 
constant  modification.  As  soon  as  the  existing 
forms  prove  inadequate  some  new  school  arises 
or  some  new  party  is  formed. 

Finally  we  have  the  differences  which  are  due 
to  variation  in  the  individual  religious  experience. 
In  religion,  as  in  other  phases  of  man's  life, 
temperament  is  an  influential  factor.  The 

1 1  use  the  word  here  in  the  most  general  sense,  to  designate 
the  type  of  religion  in  which  the  sacrament  rather  than  the 
sermon  is  made  central  in  public  worship. 


PROBLEM  OF  VARIATION  IN  RELIGION  11 


familiar  contrasts  between  the  rationalist  and 
the  mystic,  the  individualist  and  the  churchman, 
the  soul  which  bows  unquestioningly  before 
external  authority,  and  the  free  and  inquiring 
spirit  : — these  differences  make  themselves  per- 
enially  felt  in  religious  history,  and  affect  the 
larger  social  groupings,  in  interesting  and  often 
perplexing  ways. 

One  may  react  to  these  familiar  differences  in 
different  ways.  One  may  ignore  their  existence. 
I  suspect  this  attitude  is  much  more  common 
than  we  often  realize.  I  do  not  mean,  of  course, 
that  we  are  not  aware  that  there  are  other  forms 
of  religion  than  our  own,  but  that  these  do  not 
enter  in  any  real  way  into  our  daily  life.  They 
do  not  interest  us.  We  do  not  feel  any  responsi¬ 
bility  for  understanding  them.  If  we  think  of 
them  at  all,  it  is  as  of  inadequate  and  outgrown 
forms  with  which  we  have  no  concern.  Religion 
for  most  of  us  means — for  all  practical  purposes 
— our  own  religion. 

To  one  brought  up  in  this  way,  the  discovery 
of  other  religions  is  a  moving  experience.  I 
vividly  remember  when  I  first  began  to  realize 
that  the  Greek  Church  is  alive — an  institution 
through  which  millions  of  fellow-Christians 
worship  God  to-day — and  is  not  merefy  the  relic 
of  a  past  stage  in  the  history  of  the  Christian 
religion.  It  was  on  a  first  visit  to  Russia.  Driv¬ 
ing  in  Moscow  we  passed  a  street-icon  and  our 
driver  paused  an  instant  to  cross  himself  devoutly. 
I  caught  the  look  in  his  eyes  as  he  fixed  them 


12 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


upon  the  picture,  and  from  that  moment  I  was 
able  to  think  of  Greek  Christianity  as  a  living 
thing. 

3.  The  View  which  explains  Religious  Differences 
as  due  to  the  Contrast  between  True  and  False 
Religion 

The  best  known,  as  it  is  the  oldest,  of  the 
theoretical  explanations  of  the  existing  differ¬ 
ences  is  that  which  attempts  to  account  for  them 
by  their  origin.  According  to  this  view  religions 
differ  as  true  or  false.  Some  religions  are  human 
inventions,  others  owe  their  origin  to  divine 
revelation.  Only  the  latter  can  promise  the 
enlightenment  and  help  man  needs.  Thus  Chris¬ 
tianity,  as  the  revealed  religion,  differs  from  all 
merely  natural  or  ethnic  faiths,  because  while 
Christianity  is  based  upon  a  definite  and  authori¬ 
tative  revelation  of  God,  they  are  so  many 
attempts  of  human  reason  to  solve  for  itself  a 
problem,  which  without  supernatural  help  is  in 
its  very  nature  insoluble. 

The  contrast  between  true  and  false  religion 
is  not  confined  to  Christianity.  All  the  greater 
historic  religions  assume  the  possession  of  an  in¬ 
fallible  divine  revelation,  and  contrast  their  own 
faith  as  true  with  that  of  their  rivals  as  false. 
Each  of  the  great  religions  has  its  Bible  and  its 
Church,  its  priesthood  and  its  temples,  and  each 
professes  to  give  certainty  and  assurance  to  its 
worshippers.  The  existence  of  false  religions 


PROBLEM  OF  VARIATION  IN  RELIGION  13 


is  accounted  for  in  different  ways,  either  as  an 
unconscious  witness  to  the  existence  of  a  true 
revelation  by  those  who  do  not  possess  it,  or  as  a 
manifestation  of  the  pride  and  wickedness  of  the 
perverted  human  heart.  But  all  agree  that 
their  own  religion  possesses  unchanging  truth. 
It  alone  has  persisted  unaltered  through  the 
centuries. 

A  monk  of  the  convent  of  Alexander  Nevsky 
in  Petrograd  once  told  me  the  story  of  his  con¬ 
version  from  Lutheranism  to  the  orthodox  faith. 
He  had  investigated  all  the  forms  of  historic 
Christianity  which  were  known  to  him,  Prot¬ 
estant  and  Catholic  alike,  and  had  come  to  rest 
at  last  in  the  bosom  of  the  Greek  Church.  He  had 
written  out  the  story  of  his  quest  in  a  little 
volume  entitled  How  I  found  the  True  Church , 
a  sort  of  Russian  Apologia  pro  Vita  Sua.  The 
motives  which  had  led  him  to  his  final  decision 
were  in  the  last  analysis  two :  his  aesthetic 
satisfaction  with  the  worship  of  the  Orthodox 
Church,  and  the  fact  that  it  alone  of  all  existing 
forms  of  Christianity  had  preserved  the  primitive 
deposit  of  faith  absolutely  unchanged. 

The  theory  of  religion  which  explains  the 
existing  differences  by  their  departure  from  a 
single  unchanging  revelation  requires  a  similar 
explanation  of  the  differences  within  the  different 
religions.  These  also  are  to  be  brought  under 
the  categories  of  true  and  false.  If  God  has  given 
a  single  authoritative  revelation,  there  can  be  no 
room  for  difference  or  dispute  as  to  what  He  has 


14 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


said.  There  must  be  one  standard  to  which  all 
conform.  That  which  agrees  with  it  is  true. 
That  which  differs  from  it  must  be  false.  The 
name  given  to  false  manifestations  within  a  true 
religion  is  heresy.  We  all  know  how  great  a  role 
this  conception  has  played — not  only  in  Chris¬ 
tianity,  but  in  the  other  great  religions.  I  have 
in  my  library  a  book  by  a  Mohammedan  scholar 
on  the  seventy-three  sects  of  Islam.  With  great 
patience  and  learning  he  describes  the  differences 
in  the  teaching  and  practices  of  these  rival  sects. 
The  importance  of  his  results  becomes  evident 
when  he  reminds  his  reader  that  of  all  seventy- 
three  ways,  only  one  offers  him  any  hope  of 
reaching  Paradise.1 

4.  The  View  which  regards  them  as  Steps  in  the 
Development  of  a  Single  All  -  embracing 
Religion 

Without  minimizing  the  distinction  between 
the  true  and  the  false  in  religion,  or  overlooking 
the  importance  of  the  question  whether  God  has, 
in  fact,  revealed  Himself,  and  by  what  mark  this 

1  An  alternative  use  of  the  distinction  between  true  and 
false  may  be  referred  to  in  passing.  The  Deists,  as  is  well 
known,  identified  true  religion  with  the  religion  of  nature  which 
is  everywhere  and  always  the  same,  and  regarded  the  claim  of 
the  historic  religions  to  possess  an  additional  supernatural 
revelation  as  false.  From  their  point  of  view,  as  truly  as  that 
of  the  orthodox  theologians  they  opposed,  there  could  be  only 
one  true  religion — namely,  their  own — and  the  differences  which 
emerge  in  history,  and  which  constitute  our  present  problem, 
were  all  alike  explained  as  forms  of  superstition. 


PROBLEM  OF  VARIATION  IN  RELIGION  15 


revelation  is  to  be  recognized,  I  think  it  can  be 
said  without  fear  of  misunderstanding  that  the 
attitude  of  undiscriminating  condemnation  of  all 
religions  but  one’s  own  has  proved  untenable. 
Face  to  face  with  the  concrete  facts  of  existing 
religion,  the  most  convinced  traditionalists  have 
not  been  able  to  deny  that  the  ethnic  faiths 
contain  some  measure  of  truth.  They  have 
explained  its  presence  in  different  ways.  Some 
have  accounted  for  it  as  the  corruption  of  an 
original  divine  revelation  which,  in  spite  of  all 
imperfection,  still  retains  marks  of  a  divine  origin. 
Others  have  interpreted  it  as  due  to  human 
aspiration — the  strivings  of  the  soul  after  God 
divinely  implanted  in  man’s  nature.  Most  fre¬ 
quently  they  have  seen  in  it  a  real  though  lower 
stage  of  divine  revelation,  meant  to  prepare  the 
way  for  the  fuller  revelation  to  come.  Even  on 
this  theory  some  other  principle  of  classification 
is  obviously  needed  ;  some  alternative,  or,  at 
least,  some  supplementary  explanation  of  existing 
difference.  Such  an  explanation  has  been  found 
by  many  scholars  in  the  principle  of  develop¬ 
ment.  According  to  this  view  the  differences 
between  existing  forms  of  religion  are  due  to  the 
different  place  which  they  hold  in  the  unfolding 
of  religion  as  a  whole.  They  differ,  not  as  true 
and  false,  but  as  more  or  less  true. 

The  idea  of  development,  to  be  sure,  carries 
with  it  no  necessary  connotation  of  progress. 
As  used  by  biologists  to  explain  the  origin  of 
species  it  is  simply  the  story  of  the  emergence 


16 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


of  more  complex  forms  of  organization.  But  this 
purely  scientific  conception  has  been  paralleled 
by  a  movement  in  philosophy  in  which  the 
conception  of  development  has  been  applied  to 
man's  moral  and  religious  history.  Herder  and 
Lessing  were  leaders  in  this  movement  ;  Herder 
in  his  epoch-making  work,  Ideen  zur  Geschichte 
der  Menschheit,1  Lessing  in  his  more  popular 
treatise  on  the  Education  of  the  Human  Race.2, 

This  conception  has  had  its  reflex  influence 
upon  the  study  of  religion.  The  different  re¬ 
ligions  have  come  to  be  regarded  as  parts  of  one 
all-embracing  religion,  as  steps  through  which 
the  human  spirit  is  ascending  in  its  quest  of  God. 
The  most  famous  representative  of  this  new 
method  of  dealing  with  the  problem  of  variation 
in  religion,  and  its  most  original  interpreter,  was 
Hegel.  Hegel  explained  the  entire  phenomena 
of  religious  history  as  steps  in  the  unfolding  of 
a  single  all-inclusive  religion — a  process  through 
which,  by  slow  degrees,  proceeding  from  the  less 
to  the  more  perfect  in  an  ever-ascending  series, 
the  truth,  which  had  been  implicit  in  religion 
from  the  first,  was  made  explicit  in  definite  beliefs, 
precepts,  and  practices.3 

The  Hegelian  method,  as  is  well  known,  had 
a  great  vogue  in  its  day.  It  was  applied  not 
only  to  the  explanation  of  the  differences  between 
the  historic  religions,  but  of  the  inner  divisions 

1 1784-1791.  2 1780. 

3  On  the  Hegelian  philosophy  of  religion,  cf.  W.  Adams 
Brown,  The  Essence  of  Christianity ,  New  York,  1902,  p.  i§6  seq. 


PROBLEM  OF  VARIATION  IN  RELIGION  17 


within  each.  Baur  and  his  school  applied  it  to 
the  interpretation  of  Christian  doctrine,  and 
regarded  Catholicism  and  Protestantism  as  suc¬ 
cessive  steps  in  the  unfolding  of  the  Christian 
religion.  Students  of  comparative  religion 
grouped  the  existing  religions  in  an  ascending 
series  according  to  some  principle  of  immanent 
development.  The  methods  followed  differed 
widely  in  detail.  Sometimes  departure  was  taken 
from  the  idea  of  God,  and  we  have  the  series, 
henotheism,  polytheism,  monotheism,  pantheism. 
Sometimes  the  end  sought  in  religion  was  the 
determining  principle,  and  we  have  the  distinc¬ 
tion  between  natural  religion,  which  is  concerned 
with  happiness  and  prosperity,  and  ethical 
religion,  which  makes  character  the  goal.  The 
religion  of  this  world  was  contrasted  with  other¬ 
worldly  religion,  the  religion  of  self-fulfilment 
with  that  of  redemption.  Still  again,  attention 
was  directed  to  the  social  aspects  of  religion,  and 
we  have  religions  classified  as  tribal,  national,  or 
universal,  according  to  the  range  of  their  social 
'  consciousness.  But  in  each  case  the  individual 
religion  was  conceived  as  part  of  a  larger  religious 
development,  a  stage  through  which  the  possi¬ 
bilities  of  religion  as  a  whole  were  unfolded. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  point  out  the  limitations 
of  this  method.  They  can  all  be  summed  up  in  a 
single  sentence.  The  classifications  given  do  not 
correspond  to  the  facts.  The  varieties  in  the  exist¬ 
ing  religions  are  too  great  to  make  possible  their 
tabulation  as  parts  of  a  single  consistent  logical 


18 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


scheme.  Each  religion,  and  to  a  very  consider¬ 
able  extent,  each  lesser  unit  within  each  religion,  is 
a  complex  in  which  many  of  the  contrasted  types 
are  found.  Granting  that  the  distinctions  made 
are  correct  as  far  as  they  go,  and  I  for  one  believe 
that  every  one  of  them  points  to  a  real  difference 
of  which  we  ought  to  take  account,  the  attempt 
to  identify  them  with  existing  historic  religions 
is  hopeless  from  the  start.  The  only  way  to 
arrange  religious  phenomena  so  as  to  give  a 
truthful  account  of  religion  as  it  really  is,  is  first 
of  all  to  find  some  classification  which  is  indepen¬ 
dent  of  the  complex  groups  we  call  the  historic 
religions.  Only  when  we  have  learned  to  under¬ 
stand  religion  as  an  experience  of  living  men 
facing  a  changing  environment  can  we  hope  to 
understand  the  different  forms  which  it  has 
assumed  in  the  course  of  its  historic  develop¬ 
ment.  In  a  word,  we  must  find  our  principle 
of  classification  in  psychology. 

5.  Psychological  Classifications ,  Individualistic 

and  Social 

Much  patient  effort  has  been  expended  in  the 
attempt  to  find  such  a  classification,  and  many 
learned  books  have  been  written.  The  solutions 
proposed  are  of  various  kinds,  but  they  agree 
in  this,  that  we  can  understand  the  existing 
differences  in  religious  types  only  if  we  regard 
them  as  proceeding  from  inherent  differences  in 
human  nature,  and  therefore  likely  to  recur 


PROBLEM  OF  VARIATION  IN  RELIGION  19 


within  all  religions  as  long  as  man  remains  what 
he, is.1  I  believe  that  this  view  of  the  matter  is 
substantially  correct,  and  the  classification  which 
J  shall  suggest  follows  this  line.  It  is  psycho¬ 
logical,  in  that  it  takes  its  departure  from  the 
attitude  of  religious  people.  But  it  differs 
from  many  of  the  more  familiar  psychological 
classifications  in  that  it  finds  its  determining 
principle  in  man's  attitude  towards  organized 
society. 

In  suggesting  man's  attitude  towards  society 
as  a  principle  of  religious  classification,  I  am  far 
from  claiming  complete  originality.  The  use  of 
social  categories  to  explain  religious  differences 
is  not  uncommon.  But  most  of  those  who  have 
followed  this  method  have  taken  their  departure 
from  some  existing  historic  unit  which  they  wished 
to  interpret.  Their  primary  interest  has  been 
historical  or  theological  rather  than  psychological. 
They  wished  to  explain  the  differences  between 
the  historic  forms  of  religion,  or  to  gain  some  clue 
to  the  better  understanding  of  their  own.  Thus 
Harnack  takes  his  departure  from  the  familiar 
contrast  between  Catholic  and  Protestant,  and 
writes  the  history  of  Christianity  as  the  story  of 
the  emergence  and  development  of  three  parallel 
and  competing  forms  of  religion — the  Greek,  the 

*  1  This  does  not  mean  that  human  nature  is  something  rigid 
and  changeless,  but  only  that  different  people  tend  to  react  to  a 
particular  situation  in  different  ways,  and  that  this  difference 
of  tendency  is  a  permanent  fact,  of  which,  if  we  are  wise,  we 
shall  take  account. 


t 


20 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


Roman,  and  the  Protestant.1  Sabatier  distin¬ 
guishes  the  religion  of  authority  from  the  religion 
of  the  Spirit,  and  finds  two  main  types  of  the 
former,  the  religion  of  the  Church  and  the  religion 
of  the  Book.2  Troeltsch  also  adopts  a  threefold 

1  Harnack’s  classification  is  given  in  his  well-known  lectures, 
entitled  What  is  Christianity  ?  (1900;  Eng.  trans.,  1901).  In  this 
book,  Harnack  tells  the  story  of  the  Christian  religion  as  that 
of  the  emergence,  and  conflict  of  three  parallel  and  rival  forms 
of  Christianity — Greek  Christianity,  Roman  Christianity,  and 
Protestantism.  These  are  not,  as  Baur  and  the  Hegelian  school 
had  maintained,  steps  in  the  development  of  the  Christian 
religion,  but  parallel  and  in  many  respects  inconsistent  forms  of 
religion.  Each  claims  to  cover  the  whole  ground.  Each  is 
certain  of  possessing  the  complete  truth.  Each  shows  the 
qualities  of  churchly  as  distinct  from  individual  or  sectarian 
religion.  Between  them  they  seem  to  Harnack  to  exhaust  the 
logical  possibilities.  He  sees  no  room  for  any  other.  There 
may  be  changes  within  each.  There  may  be  development  and 
progress.  But  this  development  will  give  rise  to  no  new  form, 
important  enough  to  take  its  place  as  a  fourth  member  in  the 
classification.  Even  the  changes  produced  by  modern  science 
are  for  the  purposes  of  religious  classification  negligible.  Modern 
Protestantism,  so  often  contrasted  with  the  religion  of  the 
Reformation  as  a  distinct  type,  represents  to  Harnack  no  new 
form  of  the  Christian  religion.  It  is  an  inner-Protestant  develop¬ 
ment,  interesting  and  important,  but  not  important  enough  to 
require  any  structural  change,  similar  to  that  which  divides 
Protestantism  from  its  two  older  sisters  of  the  Christian  family. 

For  a  criticism  of  this  classification,  cf.  my  article  “  Is  our 
Protestantism  still  Protestant  ?  ”  Harvard  Theological  Review , 
Jan.  1908,  p.  28  seq. 

2  Sabatier’s  classification  is  given  in  his  posthumous  work, 
The  Religions  of  Authority  and  the  Religion  of  the  Spirit  (1904  ; 
Eng.  trans.,  New  York,  1904).  Sabatier  finds  Harnack’s  treat¬ 
ment  unsatisfactory  in  two  ways.  In  the  first  place  it  separates 
types  which  belong  together.  In  the  second  place  it  fails  to 
distinguish  types  which  should  be  separated.  Harnack  dis¬ 
tinguishes  three  parallel  forms  of  historic  Christianity — Greek 
Catholicism,  Roman  Catholicism,  and  Protestantism.  But  to 


PROBLEM  OF  VARIATION  IN  RELIGION  21 


classification,  but  his  triad  consists  of  the  religion 
of  the  Church,  the  religion  of  the  sect,  and  mystical 
religion  which  is  purely  individualistic.1 

The  classification  presently  to  be  suggested 
approaches  the  subject  from  a  different  angle. 
In  all  the  above  classifications,  as  we  have  seen, 
the  historic  interest  is  controlling.  The  aim  is  to 

Sabatier  Greek  and  Roman  Catholicism,  widely  as  they  differ 
from  one  another,  are  yet  both  forms  of  the  religion  of  the  Church. 
Both  attribute  final  authority  to  an  external  organization  whose 
utterance  is  identified  with  the  voice  of  God.  Both  contend 
that  this  Church  has  preserved  the  deposit  of  faith  unchanged, 
and  therefore  deserves  the  unquestioning  submission  of  all  who 
desire  salvation. 

Under  Protestantism,  on  the  other  hand,  Harnack  combines 
two  types  of  religion  which,  according  to  Sabatier,  should  be 
distinguished.  There  is  the  old  dogmatic  Protestantism  of  the 
creeds  and  the  systems,  which  substitutes  the  Bible  for  the 
Church  as  the  infallible  revelation  of  God,  but  for  the  rest  requires 
for  it  the  same  unquestioning  submission  which  the  Catholic 
asks  for  the  Councils  or  the  Pope.  There  is,  on  the  other  hand, 
modern  Protestantism  which  recognizes  the  right  of  the  free 
spirit  to  judge  for  itself,  and  holds  that  God  is  most  truly  known 
when  each  man  decides  for  himself  what  is  true.  But  the  same 
free  spirit  is  found  in  Catholicism  in  the  movement  we  know  as 
Modernism.  Sabatier,  then,  would  substitute  for  the  threefold 
classification  of  Harnack,  a  new  division,  also  threefold — namely, 
the  religion  of  the  Church,  the  religion  of  the  Book,  and  the 
religion  of  the  Spirit. 

1  For  the  details  of  Troeltsc.h’s  classification  see  his  imposing 
monograph  on  the  social  teaching  of  the  Christian  Churches 
( Die  Soziallehven  der  christlichen  Kirchen  mid  Gruppen,  Tubingen, 
1919,  pp.  358-426).  He  distinguishes  three  types  of  historic 
religion — the  Church  type,  the  sect  type,  and  the  mystical  type. 
The  first  makes  the  institution  as  such  the  final  norm  of  religion. 
The  second  identifies  the  truth  with  the  teaching  of  a  school  or 
party.  The  third  makes  the  individual  soul  the  final  arbiter 
of  truth,  and  the  appointed  meeting-place  of  God  and  man.  In 
all  these  we  have  to  do  with  parallel  competing  types,  each  of 
which  claims  to  cover  the  whole  field  of  the  religious  experience. 


22 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


understand  the  existing  differences  in  Christianity. 
In  the  classification  we  shall  propose  the  psycho¬ 
logical  interest  is  dominant.  We  shall  ask  in 
what  way  does  the  religious  individual  react  to 
his  social  environment,  whatever  that  environ¬ 
ment  may  be.  What  are  the  possible  attitudes 
which  man  may  take  toward  existing  social 
institutions,  and  how  far  do  we  find  these  differing 
social  attitudes  expressing  themselves  in  con¬ 
trasted  types  of  religious  experience  ?  The  two 
inquiries  are  not  unrelated,  nor  need  their  results 
be  inconsistent.  Indeed  it  may  well  prove  that 
the  psychological  approach  will  bring  to  light 
aspects  of  the  religious  experience  which  might 
otherwise  elude  the  historian. 

The  psychological  approach  to  religious  prob¬ 
lems  is  not  a  modern  discovery.  Schleiermacher 
used  it  with  remarkable  originality  and  power, 
and  in  this  he  was  following  older  masters, 
notably  the  master  psychologist  of  the  ancient 
Church,  Augustine.  From  his  Northampton 
study,  Jonathan  Edwards  made  notable  con¬ 
tribution  to  the  psychological  study  of  religion 
in  his  Treatise  on  the  Religious  Affections  (1746). 
Such  distinctions  as  that  between  mystical, 
rational  or  dogmatic,  and  practical  religion  have 
long  been  commonplaces  of  the  systematic 
theologian.  But  it  is  only  in  comparatively 
recent  times  that  the  professional  psychologist 
has  begun  to  concern  himself  with  religious 
problems.  This  new  interest  has  given  rise  to 
the  discipline  of  the  psychology  of  religion. 


PROBLEM  OF  VARIATION  IN  RELIGION  23 


The  psychological  study  of  religion  has  been 
most  actively  pursued  in  the  United  States.1 
But  it  was  the  appearance  in  1902  of  Professor 
William  James's  epoch-making  Gifford  Lectures 
on  the  Varieties  of  the  Religious  Experience ,2 
that  did  most  to  focus  the  attention  of  the 
general  public  upon  the  problems  of  personal 
religion.  The  distinction  of  the  author  in 
his  chosen  field,  the  international  auspices  under 
which  his  book  appeared,  together  with  its 
charm  and  originality,  combined  to  attract  wide 
attention  to  the  new  theme.  The  detailed 
examination  which  James  gave  to  the  different 
aspects  of  the  individual  religious  experience  was 
all  to  the  good,  and  students  of  religion,  as  well 
as  psychologists,  have  much  to  learn  from  his 


1  Professor  Starbuck  was  one  of  the  pioneers  of  the  new  study. 
He  tried  to  throw  light  on  the  nature  of  religion  by  analysing 
its  contemporary  forms,  and  for  this  purpose  developed  the 
method  of  the  questionnaire.  The  questions  in  which  he  took 
the  greatest  interest  were  those  which  were  most  prominent  in 
the  experience  of  the  young  men  and  women  whom  he  studied, 
such  questions  as  the  nature  and  antecedents  of  conversion,  the 
nature  of  prayer  and  the  possibility  of  its  answer,  and  the  like. 
Others  who  have  followed  similar  methods  are  President  Stanley 
Hall  of  Clark  University  and  Professor  Leuba  of  Bryn  Mawr. 
Professor  Ames  of  the  University  of  Chicago  lays  stress  upon  the 
social  aspects  of  religion,  but  he  does  not  make  the  religious  man’s 
attitude  to  society  a  principle  of  classification.  A  particularly 
fruitful  contribution  is  that  of  Professor  Stratton  ( The  Psychology 
of  the  Religious  Life ,  London,  191 1),  because  of  the  clearness  with 
which  he  perceives  the  presence  of  contrasted  emphases  in 
religion,  and  the  thoroughness  and  originality  of  his  analysis  of 
the  most  important  of  them.  The  more  recent  work  of  Professor 
Coe  and  Professor  Pratt  is  familiar  to  all  students  of  the  subject. 

2  London,  1902. 


24 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


brilliant  discussion.  It  is  the  more  to  be  re¬ 
gretted  that  his  restriction  of  his  inquiry  to  the 
purely  individual  aspects  of  the  religious  experi¬ 
ence  should  for  the  moment  have  diverted 
attention  from  other — and  no  less  important — 
factors  in  the  religious  life. 

Professor  James  himself  was  quite  alive  to 
this  limitation.  The  field  which  he  chose  for  his 
investigation  was  arbitrarily  restricted.  “  What 
I  propose  to  study,”  he  said,  "is  the  feelings, 
acts,  and  experiences  of  individual  men  in  their 
solitude,  so  far  as  they  apprehend  themselves  to 
stand  in  relation  to  whatever  they  may  consider 
the  divine.”  1  It  is  the  religion  of  the  solitary 
and  the  saint  which  James  invites  us  to  study  ; 
the  lonely  soul  in  commerce  with  its  God.  All 
the  differences  which  owe  their  origin  to  history 
are  ignored.  Mystical  religion  is  studied,  but 
ethical  religion  is  touched  on  but  lightly.  The 
religion  which  expressed  its  faith  in  God  by  its 
love  to  man  receives  scant  attention. 

Within  the  limits  which  he  has  set  for  himself, 
Professor  James's  work  is  full  of  suggestion  for 
the  student  of  religious  types.2  His  catholic 

1  Op.  cit.  p.  31. 

2  It  is  true  that  Professor  James  himself  gives  no  systematic 
classification  of  religious  types  even  in  the  field  of  individualistic 
religion.  Indeed  it  is  surprising  how  little  attention  psychologists 
have  hitherto  given  to  this  subject.  The  appearance  of  Professor 
Jung’s  important  work  on  Psychologische  Typen  (Zurich,  1921) 
has  called  attention  to  this  neglected  field,  and  it  is  to  be  hoped 
that  in  the  future  it  will  receive  the  attention  it  deserves  from 
students  of  the  psychology  of  religion.  Cf.  also  Tansley,  The. 
New  Psychology ,  London,  1920,  p.  102  seq. 


PROBLEM  OF  VARIATION  IN  RELIGION  25 


spirit  finds  meaning  in  phases  of  the  religious 
experience  which  have  hitherto  been  passed  over 
as  negligible,  if  not  condemned  as  pathological. 
The  mystical  experience  is  analysed  in  a  fresh 
and  stimulating  way.  The  contrast  between  the 
conventional  religious  experience  and  that  of 
the  saint  is  emphasized,  and  the  significance  of 
the  latter  pointed  out.  Especially  illuminating 
is  the  distinction  which  Professor  James  draws 
between  the  positive  and  negative  aspects  of  the 
religious  experience — what  he  calls  the  religion 
of  healthy-mindedness  and  the  religion  of  the 
sick  soul.  In  the  former,  normal  development  is 
the  rule,  and  there  is  no  acute  consciousness  of 
sin  ;  in  the  latter— the  religion  of  the  twice-born 
— the  soul  feels  divided  against  itself,  and  salva¬ 
tion  is  sought  in  some  radical  change  of  life. 

Professor  James  will  have  much  to  teach  us 
about  individualistic  religion — one  of  the  three 
great  religious  types  which  we  shall  study.  But 
even  individualistic  religion  can  be  conceived 
rightly  only  when  it  is  placed  in  its  historic 
setting,  and  understood  as  a  protest  against 
existing  forms  of  social  religion.  The  fact  is 
that  the  distinction  which  James  tries  to 
make  between  individual  and  social  religion 
is  an  impossible  one.  Man's  relation  to 
his  God  is  affected  in  a  hundred  ways  by  his 
relation  to  his  fellow-men,  and  no  study  of 
religious  types  can  hope  to  be  adequate  which 
does  not  have  constantly  in  mind  the  historic 
forms  which  we  call  the  religions.  This  fact  is 


26 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


coming  to  be  recognized  to-day.  The  psychology 
of  religion  is  not  proposed  as  a  substitute  for  the 
history  of  religion,  but  as  a  supplement,  and  the 
most  recent  writers  in  this  field,  like  Pratt  and 

i  • 

Coe,  have  added  to  their  description  of  the 
phenomena  of  the  individual  religious  experience 
illuminating  discussions  of  the  social  manifesta¬ 
tions  of  the  religious  life.1 

In  suggesting  a  social  principle  of  classifica¬ 
tion,  therefore,  we  must  i>ot  be  thought  to  be 
abandoning  the  psychological  approach.  We  are 
only  applying  it  in  a  different  context,  and  to  a 
larger  collection  of  facts.  We  need  a  principle 
of  classification  which  shall  deal 'with  religion  as 
a  whole,  not  simply  with  individual  aspects 
or  manifestations  of  religion, — a  principle  which 
shall  interpret  to  us  the  permanent  and  recurrent 
types  of  social  religion  which  not  only  cut  across 
the  historic  religions,  but  persist  within  each 
historical  religion, — a  principle,  finally,  which  will 
help  us  to  account  for  existing  differences  and 
to  deal  with  them  intelligently.  Such  a  principle 
we  may  find  in  man’s  relation  to  organized 
society. 

6.  A  Suggested  Classification 

There  are  three  possible  attitudes  which  one 
may  take  to  existing  social  institutions.  One 
may  accept  them  as  they  are  without  question, 
and  yield  them  willing  and  loyal  allegiance. 

1  Cf.  Coe,  Psychology  of  Religion,  1916,  pp.  1 07  seq.,  246  seq.  ; 
Pratt,  The  Religious  Consciousness ,  1920,  pp.  68  seq.,  255  seq. 


PROBLEM  OF  VARIATION  IN  RELIGION  27 


i 

One  may  protest  against  them  as  corrupt  or 
negligible,  and  find  in  one’s  own  inner  life  a 
refuge  and  compensation.  One  may  believe  that 
society  itself  is  in  the  process  of  remaking,  and 
that  in  the  progress  towards  better  things  each 
man  and  woman  may  have  a  part.  These  three 
attitudes  have  their  counterparts  in  religion. 
There  are  religious  people  who  are  satisfied  with 
the  Church  as  it  is,  and  yield  it  their  willing  and 
hearty  allegiance.  There  are  others  who  regard 
it  as  corrupt  or  negligible  and  believe  that  religion 
is  capable  of  complete  description  in  terms  of  the 
relation  between  God  and  tjie  individual  soul. 
There  are  still  others  who  believe  that  God  is 
using  the  present  Church  to  train  men  and  women 
for  a  better  social  order,  and  that  it  is  the  privilege 
of  every  truly  religious  person  to  co-operate  in  the 
process. 

These  three  types  of  religious  experience  give 
rise  to  institutions  appropriate  to  their  genius. 
They  are  all  social  forms  of  religion,  wholes,  not 
parts  ;  religions,  not  simply  types  of  religious 
experience.1  They  recur  in  every  age  and  cut 
across  the  great  complexes  we  call  the  historic 
religions.  They  have  as  yet  no  recognized  names. 
For  the  purpose  of  this  discussion  we  shall  call 
them  imperialism,  individualism ,  and  democracy. 
By  imperialism  we  shall  understand  a  type  of 
religion,  the  representatives  of  which  believe 
that  they  serve  God  best  when  they  submit 

1  This  is  true,  as  we  shall  see  later,  even  of  individualistic 
religion.  Cf.  Chapter  IV.  p.  1 1 8  seq. 


28 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


to  the  control  of  some  existing  institution  whose 
supremacy  in  the  world  they  identify  with  the 
triumph  of  God’s  will.  By  individualism  we 
shall  understand  a  type  of  religion  whose  re¬ 
presentatives  despair  of  satisfaction  through  any 
existing  institution,  and  find  solace  in  immediate 
communion  between  the  individual  soul  and  God. 
By  democracy  we  shall  understand  a  type  of 
religion  the  representatives  of  which  are  con¬ 
vinced  that  they  serve  God  best  when  they  dis¬ 
cover  His  presence  in  other  persons  and  unite 
with  them  in  the  progressive  realization  of  the 
ideal  social  order  which  it  is  God’s  purpose  to 
establish  on  earth  through  the  free  co-operation 
of  men. 

This  classification  differs  from  the  other 
social  classifications  with  which  I  am  familiar 
in  two  respects.  In  the  first  place  it  groups 
under  the  common  head  of  imperialism  forms  of 
authoritative  religion  which  other  classifications 
separate.  In  the  second  place  it  distinguishes 
individualism  and  democracy  as  independent 
types,  whereas  the  best  known  classifications 
group  them  together  as  religions  of  freedom  in 
contrast  to  the  religion  of  authority.1 

1  Thus  Sabatier,  as  we  have  seen,  distinguishes  the  religion 
of  the  Church  and  the  religion  of  the  Book  as  religions  of  authority 
from  the  religion  of  the  Spirit.  Troeltsch  distinguishes  the 
churchly  type  of  religion  from  the  religion  of  the  sect,  and  both 
as  social  forms  of  religion  from  mystical  religion,  which  is  purely 
individualistic.  Harnack,  employing  more  conventional  cate¬ 
gories,  contrasts  Protestantism  with  the  two  great  forms  of 
Catholicism,  that  of  the  Greek  Church,  in  which  the  emphasis 
falls  upon  the  past,  and  Roman  Catholicism  which  possesses 


PROBLEM  OF  VARIATION  IN  RELIGION  29 


In  experience,  to  be  sure,  the  three  types  we 
have  distinguished  as  imperialistic,  individualistic, 
and  democratic  seldom  meet  us  in  absolute 
contrast.  No  individualist  ever  succeeds  in 
cutting  himself  off  completely  from  his  fellows, 
or  even  in  staying  all  the  time  as  much  cut  off 
as  in  his  most  solitary  moments.  Even  the  most 
convinced  imperialist  is  sometimes  visited  with 
questionings  as  to  the  wisdom  and  justice  of  his 
Church's  decrees.  As  for  democracy,  that  remains 
still  an  aspiration  for  most  of  us,  the  description 
of  the  kind  of  thing  we  would  like  to  be  and  to 
do  if  we  could  realize  our  highest  ideal.  Never¬ 
theless,  the  types  are  real  types,  and  they  are 

an  organization  which  enables  it  to  deal  effectively  with  the  new 
problems  of  the  present  and  of  the  future.  No  one  of  the  three 
recognizes  democratic  religion  as  an  original  and  independent 
type. 

Of  all  the  writers  on  religious  clasification  with  whom  I  am 
acquainted,  Professor  Hauter  comes  nearest  to  the  classification 
here  suggested.  He  sees  clearly  that  there  is  need  of  a  new 
category  to  describe  the  type  of  religion  towards  which  modern 
Protestantism  is  tending.  But  he  does  not  himself  suggest  that 
category  or  define  the  characteristics  of  the  religion  it  is  designed 
to  express.  Cf.  his  suggestive  essay,  “  Le  probleme  sociologique 
du  Protestantisme,”  Revue  d’Histoire  et  de  Philosophie  religieuses , 
Jan. -Feb.,  1923.  “  Thus  the  vision  of  a  new  society  appears 

upon  the  horizon,  a  society  which  is  neither  gregarious  \i.e. 
dominated  by  the  herd  instinct],  nor  sectarian.  It  is  not 
gregarious,  since  it  is  based  upon  a  fully  developed  individualism  ; 
it  is  not  sectarian,  for  the  individual  and  society  do  not  seek  to 
escape  from  each  other  :  on  the  contrary,  they  seek  each  other, 
and  together  form  but  a  single  whole.  Nor  is  this  society  a 
synthesis  of  individualistic  society  and  collective  society. 
With  reference  to  each  of  these  alternatives  it  is  a  new  type  of 
society.  We  have  as  yet  no  name  to  characterize  it.  This  as 
yet  undefined  social  form  is  the  hidden  ideal  of  Protestantism  ” 
{op.  cit.  p.  50). 


30 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


sufficiently  distinct  to  serve  a  useful  purpose  in 
definition.1 

Let  me  make  clear  at  the  outset  that  I  do 
not  propose  this  classification  as  a  substitute  for 
other  possible  classifications,  but  as  a  supplement. 
The  contrasts  in  the  character  of  the  individual 
religious  life  pointed  out  by  psychologists  are 
real  contrasts,  and  they  are  important  contrasts. 

1  On  the  meaning  of  the  term  “  type,”  cf.  Jung,  op.  cit. 
pp.  ii,  686.  Professor  Jung  distinguishes  two  tendencies  in 
human  nature  which  he  names  respectively  “  introversion  ”  and 
“  extraversion.”  The  introvert  concentrates  his  attention 
on  what  goes  on  within  him — his  own  subjective  states  and 
experiences ;  whereas  the  extravert  is  most  interested  in  external 
objects.  The  contrast  is  never  an  absolute  one,  since  both 
tendencies  are  present  to  some  degree  in  every  normal  human 
being  ;  but  it  is  sufficiently  marked  to  serve  as  a  useful  principle 
of  classification.  Professor  Jung  believes  that  it  is  possible  to 
distinguish  further  subdivisions  within  each  of  these  main 
groups,  according  to  the  greater  or  less  prominence  of  certain 
dominant  functions,  such  as  thought,  feeling,  perception 
(. Empfmden ),  intuition  (op.  cit.  p.  12).  Other  psychologists 
(e.g.  Trotter)  point  out  other  contrasts,  such  as  that  between  the 
stable  and  the  unstable  type,  i.e.  the  man  who  holds  rigidly  to 
a  single  conclusion  after  it  has  once  been  adopted,  and  the  man 
who  adapts  himself  readily  to  new  conditions.  Tansley  (op. 
cit.  p.  102),  combining  Trotter’s  classification  with  Jung’s, 
arrives  at  four  main  classes — the  stable  extravert,  the  unstable 
extravert,  the  stable  introvert,  the  unstable  introvert.  It 
would  be  interesting  to  inquire  how  the  social  classification  here 
suggested  relates  itself  to  these  psychological  classifications. 
Will  it  appear  that  the  imperialists  and  democrats  to  whom  our 
study  will  introduce  us  are  predominantly  of  the  extravert  type, 
whereas  the  individualists  are  introverts  ?  Shall  we  say  that  the 
imperialist  is  a  stable  extravert,  whereas  the  democrat  is  an 
unstable  extravert  ?  Can  the  difference  between  the  sectarian 
(cf.  p.  125)  and  the  more  radical  individualist  be  described  by 
saying  that  the  former  is  a  stable  introvert,  while  the  latter  is 
of  the  unstable  variety  ?  Into  these  interesting  but  elusive 
speculations  we  cannot  enter  here. 


PROBLEM  OF  VARIATION  IN  RELIGION  31 


Other  differences  of  far-reaching  significance  are 
due  to  changes  in  the  intellectual  and  social 
environment.1  These  differences  modify  the 
social  attitudes  we  have  distinguished  in  im¬ 
portant  and  instructive  ways,  but  they  do  not 
supersede  them.  Indeed,  the  true  significance 
of  these  other  contrasts  becomes  apparent  only 
when  they  are  studied  from  this  new  angle. 

A  word  may  be  said  finally  of  the  choice  of 
the  names.  In  spite  of  possibilities  of  misunder¬ 
standing,  which  it  must  be  left  for  following 
chapters  to  remove,  the  terms  “  individualism  ” 
and  “  democracy  ”  perhaps  sufficiently  explain 
themselves.  But  the  choice  of  the  term  “  im¬ 
perialism  ”  may  require  some  justification.  Would 
not  institutional  religion  be  a  more  natural  and 
less  misleading  word  for  what  we  have  in  mind  ? 
The  answer  is  that  institutional  religion  is  too 
wide  for  our  purpose.  It  includes  forms  of  tribal 
and  national  religion  which  have  no  universal 
religious  significance.  But  imperialism,  as  the 
name  implies,  has  the  missionary  outlook.  It 
aspires  to  be,  it  believes  that  it  has  the  power 
to  become,  the  religion  of  mankind.  It  corre¬ 
sponds,  therefore,  in  the  range  of  its  interests  with 


1  Such  is  the  difference  between  a  static  conception  of 
religion  and  one  that  makes  room  for  progress.  Even  more 
fundamental  is  the  difference  between  the  type  of  religion  which 
conceives  of  God  in  terms  of  moral  personality,  and  so  con¬ 
serves,  and  even  enhances,  the  familiar  social  and  ethical  values, 
and  that  which  expresses  the  relation  between  God  and  man 
in  terms  of  absolute  contrast,  and  therefore  can  give  no  intel¬ 
ligible  account  of  the  content  of  the  religious  experience. 


32 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


the  other  two  terms  with  which  we  have  contrasted 
it,  and  will  serve  better  than  any  other  to  introduce 
us  to  the  study  of  the  type  it  is  used  to  designate. 

In  choosing  the  terms  imperialism,  individual¬ 
ism,  and  democracy  to  designate  types  of  religious 
experience  it  need  hardly  be  said  that  we  do  not 
intend  to  pass  any  moral  judgment  on  the  types 
thus  designated,  certainly  not  at  the  outset.  We 
are  not  implying  that  imperialistic  religion  is  bad 
religion,  and  democratic  religion  good  religion. 
That  may  or  may  not  prove  to  be  the  case.  We 
are  using  the  terms  as  simple  descriptions  of 
obvious  and  incontrovertible  facts.  We  have 
chosen  them  because  they  help  us  to  understand 
things  as  they  are ;  and  this  is  the  place  at  which 
all  sound  criticism  must  begin. 

I  believe  that  this  effort  to  lay  the  foundation 
for  criticism  in  knowledge  registers  one  of  the 
significant  moral  advances  of  our  time.  What¬ 
ever  else  we  may  decide  we  ought  to  do  with 
the  types  from  which  we  differ,  we  are  coming 
to  see  that  at  least  we  ought  to  understand  them. 
And  when  I  say,  to  understand  them,  I  do  not 
mean  simply  in  the  intellectual  sense.  I  mean 
that  we  ought  to  appreciate  them.  It  is  not 
enough  to  know  as  a  matter  of  fact  what  men 
think  and  what  they  do.  We  must  learn  to 
understand  how  they  feel,  and  why  they  feel  so. 
To  do  this  takes  patient  study,  and  long-continued 
discipline.  Above  all,  it  requires  ripe  experience 
of  life.  Before  I  have  the  right  to  judge  my 
neighbour,  I  must  in  some  true  sense  become  my 


PROBLEM  OF  VARIATION  IN  RELIGION  33 


neighbour.  I  must  see  with  his  eyes,  and  think 
with  his  thoughts,  and  feel  with  his  heart.  Only 
then  have  I  won  the  right  to  differ  from  him. 

This  does  not  mean  that  I  must  surrender  my 
right  to  differ.  Our  plea  for  sympathy  is  not  a 
plea  for  indifference.  Rather  is  it  a  plea  for 
the  conditions  which  alone  make  just  judgment 
possible.  Because  the  three  types  of  religion  of 
which  we  have  spoken  are  all  of  them  likely  to 
be  permanent,  it  does  not  follow  that  they  are 
all  of  them  equally  useful  or  all  of  them  equally 
true.  There  is  a  moral  problem  in  classification 
as  well  as  an  intellectual  problem.  We  have  not 
only  to  account  for  these  different  forms  of 
religion.  We  have  to  evaluate  them.  Granting 
that  they  are  here,  and  here  to  stay,  what  shall 
we  do  with  them  ?  We  cannot  belong  to  all  of 
them  at  the  same  time.  At  least  such  an  achieve¬ 
ment  is  possible  only  at  rare  intervals  and  to  a 
virtuoso  in  sympathy.  We  must  choose  between 
them.  And,  having  chosen,  we  must  decide 
what  our  attitude  shall  be  to  the  individuals  and 
to  the  types  from  which  we  differ.  I  shall  have 
something  to  say  on  this  point  later  on.1  All 
that  I  wish  here  to  do  is  to  interpret  the  spirit 
in  which  we  should  approach  our  study.  It  will 
be,  I  trust,  a  spirit  of  enlightened  sympathy. 
But  it  will  be  at  the  same  time  a  spirit  of  serious 
responsibility.  We  shall  spare  no  pains  to  under¬ 
stand.  We  should  not  forget,  that  when  we 
have  understood,  we  must  act. 

1  Cf.  especially  Chapter  VI. 


3 


CHAPTER  II 


RELIGION  AS  PERSONAL  EXPERIENCE 
AND  AS  HISTORIC  PROCESS 

i.  Imperialism ,  Individualism ,  and  Democracy 
as  Recurrent  Religious  Types 

IN  the  last  chapter  we  reviewed  some  of  the 
explanations  which  have  been  given  of  the 
fact  of  variation  in  religion  and  pointed 
out  wherein  they  were  inadequate.  We  agreed 
that  the  method  of  approach  which  gave  most 
promise  of  success  was  psychological,  and  that 
to  account  for  the  puzzling  phenomena  in  religious 
history  we  must  be  able  to  explain  the  emergence 
and  persistence,  side  by  side,  of  contrasted  types 
of  religious  experience.  We  selected  for  special 
study  three  such  types  which  have  played  a 
great  role  in  religious  history,  which  for  the 
purposes  of  the  present  investigation  we  agreed 
to  call  imperialism,  individualism,  and  democracy. 
In  the  present  chapter  we  must  examine  this 
classification  more  carefully  in  the  light  of  the 
fundamental  conceptions  which  it  presupposes. 

We  saw  that  there  are  three  possible  attitudes 
which  the  individual  may  take  toward  organized 
society.  He  may  accept  it  as  it  is  ;  he  may 

34 


RELIGION  AS  PERSONAL  EXPERIENCE  35 


reject  it  altogether  ;  he  may  try  to  improve  it. 
These  attitudes  have  their  counterparts  in  re¬ 
ligious  experience.  There  are  people  who  are 
conservative  in  their  attitude  toward  existing 
institutions  who  accept  them  as  they  are,  and 
who  yield  them  unquestioning  allegiance.  The 
victory  of  their  party  or  of  their  Church  is  the 
form  in  which  their  own  personality  finds  its 
most  complete  and  satisfying  expression.  They 
can  conceive  of  no  more  gratifying  success,  no 
more  rewarding  experience  than  to  have  taken 
part  in  helping  to  secure  this  victory.  Their 
judgment  of  other  men  is  determined  in  the 
same  way.  Acquaintances  are  good  or  bad, 
worthy  of  praise  or  of  blame,  according  as  they 
confess  the  same  allegiance,  and  yield  the  same 
obedience.  For  to  their  minds,  no  other  good 
compares  with  the  triumph  of  their  Church  or 
of  their  nation.  They  do  not  recognize  any 
rights  which  exist  independently  of  it.  They  do 
not  shrink  from  any  act  which  is  necessary  to 
make  it  secure.  We  have  called  such  an  attitude 
of  mind  imperialism,  and  the  type  of  religion  to 
which  it  gives  rise  imperialistic  religion. 

There  are  others  whose  attitude  to  society  is 
just  the  reverse.  They  cannot  find  anywhere  in 
the  existing  institutions  of  society  what  com¬ 
pletely — or  even  measurably — satisfies  their  sense 
of  truth  and  of  beauty.  They  are  revolted  by 
the  compromises  which  organized  society  asks  of 
those  who  live  under  it.  They  feel  their  inner 
freedom  impaired,  the  full  development  of  their 


36 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


God-given  personality  thwarted.  They  are  in 
quest  of  another  world  where  they  can  develop 
each  in  his  way — an  unseen  reality  in  communion 
with  which  they  may  find  self-fulfilment.  They 
are  individualists  in  the  sense  that  they  make 
the  realization  of  God’s  presence  in  their  own 
individual  personality  the  summum  bonum ,  and 
for  this  are  ready  to  sacrifice  all  else,  even  the 
most  sacred  human  relationships.  They  are  in 
the  world,  but  not  of  the  world.  Their  religion 
asks  for  God  and  the  soul — nothing  more. 

And  there  are  still  others  whose  attitude 
differs  from  both  of  these.  They  agree  with  the 
individualist  in  his  criticism  of  existing  society. 
Like  him,  they  insist  upon  the  autonomy  of  the 
free  spirit.  Rather  than  surrender  this  they  will 
make  every  sacrifice.  But  the  freedom  which 
they  claim  for  themselves  they  are  willing  to 
grant  to  others.  They  do  not  think  that  they 
possess  the  whole  truth,  or  that  they  can  ever 
attain  it  by  themselves.  Although  they  may 
find  much  to  criticize  in  existing  society,  they 
are  not  despondent  as  to  its  longer  future.  They 
are  convinced  that  social  institutions  are  capable 
of  improvement,  and  they  ask  nothing  better 
than  to  join  in  the  effort  to  improve  them.  They 
know  that  this  will  be  a  long  and  arduous  task, 
and  that  their  own  generation  will  not  live  to 
see  it  finished.  But  they  are  confident  that  in 
the  end  it  can  be  accomplished.  Such  an  attitude 
we  have  called  democratic,  and  the  type  of 
religion  to  which  it  gives  rise,  democratic  religion. 


RELIGION  AS  PERSONAL  EXPERIENCE  37 


With  so  much  by  way  of  preface  we  may 
begin  the  more  detailed  consideration  of  our 
theme.  We  have  called  the  types  of  social  atti¬ 
tude  which  we  have  been  contrasting  religious. 
It  may  fairly  be  asked  how  we  justify  the  use  of 
this  word.  To  do  this  it  will  be  necessary  to  go 
back  a  little  and  to  define  some  of  the  funda¬ 
mental  conceptions  which  any  study  of  specific 
religious  phenomena  presupposes. 


2.  What  is  meant  by  Religion .  Its  Threefold 
Aspect  as  Belief,  Feeling,  and  Action 

And  first  religion  itself.  Significant  progress 
has  been  registered  at  this  initial  point.  Not 
long  ago  almost  every  writer  upon  religion  thought 
it  necessary  to  call  attention  to  the  impossibility 
of  securing  any  wide  agreement  as  to  what 
religion  is.1  Recent  monographs  on  religious 
subjects  yield  a  different  result.  We  are  struck 
by  the  extent  of  their  agreement  in  defining 
religion.2  We  now  feel  sure  that  we  really  know 

1  Thus  Mr.  Benjamin  Kidd  in  his  widely  read  book,  Social 
Evolution  (1894),  begins  by  giving  his  readers  a  long  list  of 
definitions  of  religion,  extending  over  two  or  three  pages.  After 
having  thus  demonstrated  by  the  example  of  the  greatest 
masters  that  it  is  impossible  to  agree  upon  any  single  definition 
of  religion,  he  proceeds  confidently  to  add  his  own. 

2  To  justify  this  statement  in  detail  would  require  more 
space  than  is  at  present  at  our  disposal.  It  is  sufficient  to  say 
that  the  differences  of  which  many  writers  on  religion  make 
so  much  are  due  less  to  fundamental  disagreement  as  to  what 
religion  is,  than  to  varying  emphasis  upon  one  or  other  of  the 
different  aspects  of  its  many-sided  life. 


38 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


what  religion  is,  and  we  are  able  to  distinguish 
it  with  reasonable  clearness  from  other  phases  of 
man's  experience.  We  have  learned  that  it  is 
both  broader  and  narrower  than  has  been  con¬ 
ventionally  supposed.  Religion,  like  other  living 
things,  may  create  a  shell  which  can  be  left 
behind  when  life  has  departed.  But  religion 
may  be  most  alive  before  the  shell  has  appeared. 
Religious  institutions  are  the  shells  of  religion. 
But  if  we  understand  them  for  what  they  are, 
we  shall  find  that  they  are  not  unworthy  of  our 
study  and  our  respect. 

In  what  follows  we  shall  understand  by 
religion  that  phase  of  man's  experience,  individual 
or  social,  which  leads  him  to  look  up  to  a  higher 
power  and  to  confess  his  dependence  on  it,  to 
offer  that  higher  power  the  homage  of  reverence 
or  awe  which  we  call  worship,  and  to  take  such 
action  as  he  believes  will  attract  the  favour  of 
the  deity  or  conform  to  his  will.  The  existing 
forms  of  religion  differ  widely  in  the  way  they 
conceive  the  object  of  their  worship,  the  feelings 
*  which  that  worship  calls  forth,  and  the  activities 
through  which  it  finds  expression.  But  every 
living  religion,  whatever  its  character  in  detail, 
assumes  the  existence  of  a  deity,  professes  to 
bring  about  a  personal  relationship  between  the 
deity  and  his  worshippers,  and  provides  an 
outlet  for  that  relation  in  some  appropriate  form 
of  action. 

These  three  aspects  of  the  life  of  religion,  the 
beliefs  it  presupposes,  the  feelings  it  engenders, 


RELIGION  AS  PERSONAL  EXPERIENCE  39 


and  the  activities  it  calls  forth,  are  all  intimately 
related.  They  act  and  react  upon  one  another 
in  countless  ways,  yet  the  correspondence  be¬ 
tween  the  three  is  never  perfect,  and  all  three  are 
affected  in  definite  and  recognizable  ways  by  the 
shell  to  which  we  have  already  referred. 

3.  The  Permanent  and  the  Variable  in  the  Idea 
of  Deity.  God  as  the  Realized  Ideal 

We  have  said  that  the  ideas  of  deity  differ 
widely.  We  Western  Christians  with  our  theistic 
tradition  are  so  accustomed  to  think  of  the  word 
“  God  ”  as  if  it  had  a  definite  and  unmistakable 
connotation,  that  some  of  our  most  eminent 
writers  on  religion  have  scarcely  thought  it 
necessary  to  define  what  they  meant  by  the  term. 
They  have  assumed  that  the  word  God  would 
mean  the  same  thing  to  everybody,  and  all  that 
was  necessarv  was  to  determine  whether  one 
believed  in  God  or  not.  But  it  needs  little 
acquaintance  with  the  history  of  religion  to  show 
us  that  such  a  procedure  is  too  crude  to  be 
practical.  In  the  past  the  term  deity  has  stood 
for  the  most  widely  separated  ideas,  and  this  is 
true  to-day.  Every  change  in  man’s  intellectual 
and  social  environment  has  been  reflected  in  his 
thinking  about  God.  The  Deity  has  been  thought 
of  as  like  man,  and  as  unlike  him  ;  as  personal 
and  supra-personal ;  as  one  and  many ;  as 
absolute  and  limited  ;  as  indifferent  to  man  and 
as  keenly  concerned  for  his  welfare  ;  as  entering 


40 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


into  our  experiences  in  sympathy,  and  by  His  very 
nature  incapable  of  suffering.  These  contrasts 
are  found  within  the  same  religion.  Two  cen¬ 
turies  after  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews  found 
the  chief  glory  of  Christianity  in  the  fact  that  the 
divine  high  priest  who  gave  us  our  most  complete 
and  trustworthy  revelation  of  God  could  be 
“  touched  with  the  feeling  of  our  infirmities  ” 
and  was  “  at  all  points  tempted  like  as  we  are.”  1 
a  Christian  apologist  attempted  to  win  the  respect 
of  his  contemporaries  by  the  following  descrip¬ 
tion  of  God.2 

“  If  you  do  not  refuse  to  hear  what  we  think, 
we  are  so  far  from  attributing  to  God  bodily 
lineaments  that  we  fear  to  ascribe  to  so  great  an 
object  even  the  graces  of  the  mind,  and  the  very 
virtues  in  which  to  excel  is  hardly  granted  to  a 
few.  For  who  can  speak  of  God  as  brave,  as 
constant,  as  moderate,  as  wise.  Nay,  who  can 
say  that  He  knows  anything,  that  He  understands, 
that  He  acts  with  foresight,  that  He  directs  the 
determination  of  His  actions  towards  definite 
ends  of  duty.  These  are  human  goods,  and  as 
opposed  to  vices  deserve  a  laudable  reputation. 
But  who  is  there  so  dull  of  heart  and  stupid  as  to 
call  God  great  in  human  goods,  or  to  (speak  of  the 
surpassing  excellence  of  His  name  as  if  it  con¬ 
sisted  in  a  freedom  from  the  stain  of  vices.  What¬ 
ever  you  can  say  of  God,  whatever  you  can  con¬ 
ceive  in  silent  thought,  passes  into  a  human 

1  Heb.  iv.  15. 

2  Arnobius,  adv.  Genies,  iii.  19,  quoted  in  Mansel,  Limits  of 
Religious  Thought,  5th  ed.,  1867,  p.  xxii. 


RELIGION  AS  PERSONAL  EXPERIENCE  41 


sense,  and  is  corrupted  thereby.  Nothing  can 
properly  signify  and  denote  Him  which  is  ex¬ 
pressed  in  terms  of  human  speech  for  human 
uses.  There  is  but  one  way  in  which  man  can 
understand  with  certainty  concerning  the  nature 
of  God,  and  that  is  to  know  and  feel  that  nothing 
can  be  expressed  concerning  Him  in  mortal 
speech." 

Yet  through  all  these  contrasts,  certain  stable 
elements  persist.  The  God  of  living  religion  is 
always  conceived  as  really  existing.  He  is  always 
in  some  sense  superior  to  His  worshipper,  the 
object  of  reverence  and  awe.  He  is  always 
regarded  as  holding  some  personal  relationship 
to  His  worshipper  which  has  practical  conse¬ 
quences  for  life.  This  consciousness  of  personal 
relationship  is  of  the  very  essence  of  the  religious 
experience.  It  marks  the  dividing  line  between 
philosophy  and  religion.  “  Religion  begins/'  has 
said  an  acute  critic,  “  when  I  address  the  Deity 
by  the  personal  pronoun."  The  philosopher 
may  believe  in  a  God  :  the  religious  man  cries 
"  My  God." 

The  sense  of  a  personal  relationship  to  a 
higher  power  leading  to  worship,  which  we  have 
seen  to  be  the  characteristic  feature  of  the  religious 
experience,  may  be  illustrated  in  many  utterances 
which  are  not  commonly  regarded  as  religious 
at  all.  We  may  cite  two  examples  which  are 
all  the  more  instructive  because  they  are  taken 
from  the  writings  of  men  who  have  broken  with 
the  accepted  forms  of  organized  religion.  The 


42 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


first  is  from  a  poet,  the  second  from  a  man  who 
is  internationally  known  as  an  ethical  teacher. 
Both  have  been  repeatedly  characterized  by 
religious  people  as  unbelievers. 

Our  first  witness  is  Shelley,  and  the  quotation 
is  from  his  Hymn  on  Intellectual  Beauty. 


“  Spirit  of  Beauty,  that  dost  consecrate 

With  thine  own  hues  all  thou  dost  shine  upon 
Of  human  thought  or  form,  where  art  thou  gone  ? 
Why  dost  thou  pass  awajr  and  leave  our  state, 

This  dim  vast  vale  of  tears,  vacant  and  desolate. 


I  vowed  that  I  would  dedicate  my  powers 

To  thee  and  thine.  Have  I  not  kept  my  vow  ? 

With  beating  heart  and  streaming  eyes,  even  now 
I  call  the  phantoms  of  a  thousand  hours 
Each  from  his  voiceless  grave  ;  they  have  in  visioned  bowers 
Of  studious  zeal  or  love’s  delight 
Outwatched  with  me  the  envious  night, 

They  know  that  never  joy  illumed  my  brow 
Unlinked  with  hope  that  thou  wouldest  free 
This  world  from  its  dark  slavery. 

That  thou — O  awful  Loveliness, 

Would’st  give  whate’er  these  words  cannot  express.” 


This  is  a  typically  religious  utterance.  It 
has  all  the  marks  of  the  experience  we  have  been 
defining,  the  belief  in  the  existence  of  a  higher 
power,  the  upward  look,  the  sense  of  reverence 
and  worship,  and  above  all  the  consciousness  of  a 
personal  relationship  which  finds  expression  in  a 
definite  act  of  will. 

The  second  witness  is  Dr.  Felix  Adler,  the 
eminent  teacher  and  scholar,  founder  and  head 
of  the  Society  of  Ethical  Culture  in  New  York  ; 


RELIGION  AS  PERSONAL  EXPERIENCE  43 


and  the  quotation  is  from  his  little  book  called 
The  Religion  of  Duty.1 

“  There  is  something  in  religion/'  says  Dr. 
Adler,  “besides  its  doctrines,  its  symbols,  and  its 
ceremonies.  There  is  something  underlying, 
which  we  cannot  afford  to  lose,  and  do  not  wish 
to  lose,  without  which  our  lives  would  be  poor 
and  miserable  indeed.  That  which  is  ever¬ 
lastingly  precious  in  religion  is  the  conviction 
that  life  is  worth  while,  because  there  is  some¬ 
thing  going  forward  in  the  universe  which  is 
essentially  worth  while,  something  shaping  itself 
towards  that 

One  far-off  divine  event 

Toward  which  the  whole  creation  moves. 

“  Our  individual  lives  are  so  poor,  so  petty, 
and  so  meaningless  that  there  must  be  something 
greater  which  our  lives  subserve  in  order  to 
make  them  worth  the  while,  something  infinitely 
beautiful  and  holy,  working  itself  out  in  things 
which  may  be  served  by  our  poor  lives.  We 
need  the  conviction  that  this  world  is  not  a 
colossal  loom  on  which  the  shuttle  of  chance 
weaves  the  garment  of  unreason  and  despair  ; 
that  our  ideals  are  not  mere  wishes,  with  no  surety 
of  fulfilment,  but  that  at  the  heart  of  things  there 
is  that  which  will  make  them  real." 

“  There  is  that  at  the  heart  of  things  which 
will  make  our  wishes  real."  “  There  is  some¬ 
thing  greater  than  we  which  may  be  served  by 

1  New  York,  1905,  p.  1. 


44 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


our  poor  lives/ ’  It  is  the  characteristic  language 
of  religion.  This  “greater  than  we/'  this  “in¬ 
finitely  beautiful  and  holy,”  through  which  our 
lives  may  find  fulfilment,  and  yet  which  can  use 
us  for  ends  outside  ourselves,  religion  knows  as 
God.  Define  it  as  you  will.  Be  as  negative  in 
your  description  as  Arnobius.  Say,  as  Dr.  Adler 
says  further  on  in  the  book  from  which  I  have 
already  quoted:  “This  higher  Being  is  not  like 
a  man,  is  not  He  or  She  or  It,  did  not  make  the 
world  as  a  carpenter  makes  a  table  or  as  an 
architect  builds  a  house.  In  the  attempt  to 
describe  this  Being  language  faints,  imagination 
grows  dizzy,  thought  is  paralyzed  ”  ; 1 — still  if 
you  have  in  your  experience  these  four  elements 
which  we  have  described,  the  sense  of  reality,  the 
upward  look,  the  spirit  of  worship,  the  personal 
identification,  you  are  a  religious  man. 

We  may  put  it  in  this  way.  All  the  people 
in  the  world  without  exception  have  ideals  of 
some  kind.  There  are  moments  when  they  con¬ 
ceive  of  something  better  and  more  desirable 
than  the  crude  present  in  which  they  are  living. 
There  is  something  they  would  like  to  have.  There 
is  something  they  would  like  to  do.  There 
is  something  they  would  like  to  be.  These 
pictures  of  the  mind,  these  standards  by  which 
we  shape  life,  not  according  to  its  present  facts, 
but  according  to  our  standard  of  value  we  call 
ideals.  All  men,  I  repeat,  have  ideals  of  some 
kind.  But  to  some  they  are  luxuries.  One  would 

1 P-  39- 


RELIGION  AS  PERSONAL  EXPERIENCE  45 


like  to  have  them  if  one  could,  but  one  can  dis¬ 
pense  with  them  if  one  must.  If  one  must  choose 
between  one’s  ideals  and  one’s  livelihood,  the 
ideal  must  go.  To  others  their  ideals  are  necessi¬ 
ties.  They  would  rather  fail  in  search  of  them 
than  succeed  without  them.  The  man  whose 
ideals  are  luxuries  is  irreligious.  The  man  whose 
ideals  are  necessaries  is  religious.  God  is  the 
name  we  give  to  our  realized  ideal,  and  in  all 
theistic  religions  He  is  the  one  through  whom  we 
may  hope  to  realize  the  ideal  in  ourselves,  and 
in  our  world.  Religious  people  differ  in  the  way 
they  define  this  ideal,  and  in  the  vividness  of 
their  consciousness  of  its  present  realization. 

4.  Corresponding  Contrasts  in  the  Religious  Atti¬ 
tude.  Legalistic  and  Mystical  Religion 

These  differences  in  the  conception  of  the 
object  of  worship  are  paralleled  by  corresponding 
differences  of  feeling  in  the  worshippers.  In 
man’s  emotional  life,  as  well  as  in  his  beliefs  and 
in  his  actions,  the  story  of  religion  is  the  story  of 
contrast.  Fear  played  a  great  role  in  primitive 
religion.  Religion  was  a  device  for  propitiating 
an  angry  or  at  least  a  moody  deity.  Only  in  later 
stages  does  the  sense  of  intimacy  emerge,  and  God 
begin  to  be  thought  of  as  one  who  loves  His 
worshippers.  When  Jesus  spoke  His  great  word 
about  friendship,  He  set  a  new  standard  for 
religious  relationships.  “  No  longer  do  I  call 
you  servants ;  for  the  servant  knoweth  not 


46 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


what  his  lord  doeth :  but  I  have  called  you 
friends ;  for  all  things  which  I  have  heard  from 
My  Father  I  have  made  known  unto  you/’  1 

A  second  contrast  which  has  played  a  great 
part  in  the  history  of  religion  is  the  contrast 
between  pleasure  and  duty.  A  man  may  worship 
God  because  he  delights  to  do  so,  or  he  may 
worship  because  he  is  convinced  that  it  is  his 
duty  to  do  so.  This  difference  corresponds 
roughly  to  the  contrast  between  mystical  and 
legalistic  religion,  though,  as  we  shall  see  later,2 
mysticism  is  so  elusive  a  term  that  one  must 
always  define  what  one  means  if  one  wishes  to 
avoid  misunderstanding.  By  legalistic  religion, 
we  do  not  necessarily  mean  selfish  religion.  We 
certainly  do  not  mean  disagreeable  religion. 
Dr.  Montefiore3  has  reminded  us  that  legalistic 
religion,  such  as  that  of  the  Jews  at  the  time  of 
Christ,  may  be  consistent  with  a  very  real  sense 
of  freedom  and  happiness.  We  mean  a  type  of 
religion  in  which  the  dominant  motive  is  the 
consciousness  that  the  Deity  has  prescribed  some¬ 
thing  which  ought  to  be  done,  and  in  which  the 
satisfaction  felt  is  obedience  to  the  divine 
command  rather  than  the  inherent  joy  which 
springs  from  the  nature  of  the  thing  that  is  done. 
There  is  an  intimacy,  a  first-hand  quality  about 
mystical  religion  which  legalistic  religion  com- 

1  John  xv.  15.  2  P.  11 1. 

3  Hibbert  Lectures,  On  the  Origin  and  Growth  of  Religion, 
as  illustrated  by  the  Religion  of  the  Ancient  Hebrews ,  London, 
1892,  p.  479  seq. 


RELIGION  AS  PERSONAL  EXPERIENCE  47 


monly  lacks.  The  mystic  has  freed  himself  from 
all  secondary  motives,  all  appeal  to  interest  or 
fear.  His  attitude  is  correctly  pictured  in  the 
familiar  mediaeval  story  of  the  woman  who  used 
to  go  about  from  place  to  place  with  a  torch 
and  a  pitcher  of  water,  and  who,  when  asked 
what  she  proposed  to  do  with  them,  answered 
that  with  the  one  she  would  burn  up  heaven 
and  with  the  other  quench  the  fires  of  hell,  that 
henceforth  men  might  no  longer  serve  God  from 
desire  of  reward  or  fear  of  punishment,  but  for 
His  own  inherent  excellence. 

But  through  all  these  variations  of  mood  or 
attitude  one  common  quality  runs.  The  deity 
is  always  regarded  as  having  the  right  to  do 
what  he  does.  However  painful  the  thing  done 
may  be  to  the  person  to  whom  it  happens,  how¬ 
ever  much  he  may  fear  or  seek  to  avoid  the 
action  of  the  god,  there  is  always  a  secret  element 
of  reverence  and  admiration.  Even  in  the 
primitive  religions  of  fear  this  is  not  absent.  It 
may  be  true  that  what  the  god  does  to  me  hurts 
me,  but  after  all  that  is  only  what  I  would  do 
to  my  neighbour  if  I  had  the  chance.  Among 
savage  people  (would  that  we  could  believe  that 
this  was  true  only  of  savage  people),  unrestricted 
power  is  the  excellence  most  admired.  The 
ability  to  have  one's  own  way,  to  do  as  one 
pleases,  to  give  no  account  of  one's  actions  : 
these  are  the  characteristically  kingly  virtues, 
and  it  was  inevitable  that  they  should  be  ascribed 
to  the  gods.  There  is  an  instructive  story  of  a 


48 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


Peruvian  king  who  is  said  to  have  remarked 
that  the  sun  could  not  be  a  god,  because  if  that 
were  true  he  would  not  get  up  in  the  same  place 
every  morning  and  go  to  bed  in  the  same  place 
every  night.  To  simple-minded  people,  freedom 
and  arbitrariness  are  synonyms.  Only  later  do 
we  discover  that  the  highest  freedom  fulfils  itself 
through  law.  This  change  in  the  nature  of  man's 
moral  standards  is  accompanied  by  corresponding 
changes  in  his  emotional  experience,  which  reflect 
themselves  in  the  nature  of  his  worship. 

5 .  Different  W  ays  in  which  Religion  finds  Expression 
in  Action.  Ceremonial  and  Ethical  Religion. 
The  Permanent  Basis  of  Sacramentarianism 

But  if  man's  thoughts  and  his  feelings  change 
in  religion  this  is  still  more  true  of  his  actions. 
No  one  of  all  the  many  things  he  does  but  may 
be  given  a  religious  significance.  No  change  in 
social  customs  or  in  ethical  standards  but  has 
its  corresponding  effect  upon  his  religious  activity. 
Here  we  need  only  call  attention  to  two  con¬ 
trasts  of  fundamental  and  permanent  importance. 
The  first  is  the  contrast  between  those  activities 
which  take  place  within  the  spirit  of  man  himself, 
like  prayer,  meditation,  worship  in  the  narrow 
sense,  and  those  outward  acts  like  sacrifice,  and 
church-going,  which  can  be  shared  by  others. 
The  second  is  the  contrast  between  those  acts 
which  are  regarded  as  religious  in  a  peculiar  sense, 
like  preaching,  prayer,  and  the  observance  of 


RELIGION  AS  PERSONAL  EXPERIENCE  49 


sacraments,  and  that  wider  range  of  activities,  like 
charity,  helpfulness,  and  social  reform  which  differ 
from  corresponding  acts  by  irreligious  people 
simply  in  the  different  motive  which  inspires  them. 

On  the  first  of  these  contrasts,  that  between 
inward  and  outward  activity,  we  need  not 
comment  ;  for  it  is  only  the  repetition  in  the  field 
of  religion  of  a  distinction  which  is  everywhere 
familiar  in  our  lives.  But  of  the  second  a  word 
may  be  said.  The  contrast  between  religious 
acts  in  the  narrow  or  technical  sense  and  that 
wider  range  of  activity  which  is  often  called 
religious,  is  one  of  the  most  familiar  in  the  whole 
history  of  religion.  It  corresponds  roughly  to 
the  difference  between  what  is  known  as  cere¬ 
monial  and  ethical  religion.  Ceremonial  religion 
is  the  name  we  give  to  a  class  of  activities  which 
have  the  deity  for  their  object  in  a  direct  and 
immediate  fashion,  and  are  commonly  believed 
to  have  been  definitely  prescribed  by  him. 
Ethical  religion,  on  the  other  hand,  includes  all 
those  acts  which  express  a  man’s  relation  to  his 
fellow-men.  Ethics  becomes  religious  in  the 
measure  that  these  relations  are  regarded  as  a 
subject  of  the  divine  interest,  and  as  a  means 
through  which  the  divine  favour  may  be  secured 
or  the  divine  purpose  furthered. 

The  whole  field  of  ceremonial  religion  presents 
almost  insuperable  difficulty  to  numbers  of 
earnest  people  to-day.  At  no  point  is  the  con¬ 
trast  between  the  inner  feelings  which  we  have 
called  religious,  and  the  acts  which  are  supposed 
4 


50 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


to  express  them  more  glaring.  At  no  point  is 
the  remoteness  of  much  that  we  call  religion  from 
the  world  around  us  so  patent  and  repelling.  It 
may  help  us  to  recall  how  ceremonial  religion 
probably  began,  and  what  are  the  different  atti¬ 
tudes  which  men  have  taken  toward  it. 

It  seems  likely  that  what  we  to-day  call 
ceremonial  religion  had  its  origin  in  a  time  when 
the  deity  was  regarded  as  one  individual  among 
others.  We  are  apt  to  forget  that  our  unified 
world  view,  with  its  single  Deity  and  its  universal 
law,  was  a  comparatively  late  discovery.  Our 
ancestors  did  not  live  in  one  great  world,  but  in 
many  little  worlds,  and  each  world  was  presided 
over  by  its  own  deity  or  deities.  Ceremonial 
religion  was  the  code  which  prescribed  the  kind 
of  acts  which  each  of  these  deities  demanded.  It 
defined  man's  duty  to  his  god,  as  tribal  custom 
prescribed  his  duty  to  his  chief  and  to  his  peers. 
Violation  of  the  first  was  sin,  of  the  second  crime. 
And  the  things  the  god  required  were  not  different 
in  kind  from  the  things  the  chief  required. 
Homage,  gifts,  the  observance  of  a  prescribed 
ritual,— we  can  find  parallels  all  the  way  along. 
When  man  sacrificed  he  gave  the  gods  the  part 
they  wanted  of  the  things  which  he  had,  in  just 
the  same  simple  and  unquestioning  spirit  that 
he  gave  to  his  chief. 

But  as  time  went  on,  and  man's  horizon 
broadened,  this  naive  attitude  became  impossible. 
The  many  worlds  had  given  place  to  one  world, 
and  the  many  gods  to  one  God.  And  with  the 


RELIGION  AS  PERSONAL  EXPERIENCE  51 


expanding  sense  of  God’s  power  had  come  a  new 
conception  of  His  nature  and  His  interest.  He 
was  no  longer  an  individual  among  individuals. 
He  was  the  creator  and  sustainer  of  the  universe. 
He  prescribed  the  standard  of  conduct  for  man¬ 
kind.  He  was  the  guardian  of  the  moral  law. 
In  such  a  situation  the  old  explanation  of  religious 
ceremonial  had  lost  its  meaning.  And  yet  the 
ceremonial  was  there,  and  about  it  all  sorts  of 
solemn  sanctions  had  gathered.  It  was  not  only 
maintained  by  the  interest  of  the  priests  who  lived 
by  it.  It  corresponded  to  some  felt  need  in  the 
lives  that  had  grown  accustomed  to  it. 

In  this  situation  there  were  two  possible  ways 
out,  both  of  which  were  taken.  One  might  retain 
the  ceremonial  unchanged,  and  justify  it  by  a 
philosophy  of  authority.  One  might  say  :  “  The 
Deity  cares  nothing  for  these  acts  in  themselves. 
How  can  the  God  of  all  the  earth,  in  Himself  all- 
sufficient,  be  profited  by  what  men  can  do  ?  God 
is  so  far  above  man  that  not  even  our  highest 
thought  can  penetrate  the  mysteries  of  the 
divine  nature.  If  man  is  to  reach  God,  it  must 
be  by  some  method  of  God’s  own  devising. 
Such  a  method  is  given  us  in  ceremonial  religion. 
In  the  ritual,  and  sacraments  of  the  prescribed 
code,  acts  meaningless  in  themselves,  and  making 
use  of  materials  in  themselves  indifferent,  God 
has  provided  a  channel  through  which  His 
supernatural  grace  may  be  communicated  to 
man.  It  is  not  necessary  to  understand  how 
this  communication  can  be  made  ;  it  is  even 


52 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


impossible  to  do  so.  But  no  one  who  in  reverent 
spirit  approaches  the  Sacrament  can  doubt  that 
such  communication  has,  in  fact,  been  made. 
The  new  experience  of  peace  and  power  which  it 
brings  to  pass  is  its  own  sufficient  evidence.” 
This  general  method  of  explaining  and  justifying 
ceremonial  religion,  we  may  call,  for  want  of  a 
better  term,  Sacrament arianism.1 

Yet  potent  as  are  the  considerations  thus 
suggested  they  would  not  of  themselves  be 
sufficient  to  account  for  the  power  and  persistence 
of  sacramentarian  religion.  Sacramentarianism 
has  many  roots.  It  witnesses  to  man's  deep- 
seated  belief  in  the  spiritual  significance  of 
material  things.  It  expresses  his  desire  to  find 
a  religious  meaning  in  the  concrete,  in  things 
which  can  be  seen  and  handled.  The  Sacrament 
speaks  a  language  which  can  be  understood  by 
simple  people  who  find  the  doctrines  of  religion  too 
abstract  to  meet  their  spiritual  needs.  Yet  at  the 
same  time  it  lends  itself  to  a  symbolic  interpreta¬ 
tion  which  has  a  very  different  theoretical  basis. 

This  different  basis  is  presupposed  in  the 
second  method  of  dealing  with  ceremonial  re¬ 
ligion.  One  may  retain  the  ritual  of  the  old 
religion,  but  give  it  a  symbolic  meaning.  One 

1  This  use  of  the  term  is  a  narrower  one  than  the  more  general 
use  on  p.  io.  In  the  latter  sense  any  one  who  makes  the  sacra¬ 
ment  central  in  his  religious  life  may  be  called  a  sacramentarian. 
Here  the  term  is  applied  to  those  who  justify  their  emphasis 
upon  the  Sacrament  by  a  particular  theory  of  its  nature — the 
theory,  namely,  that  it  is  the  channel  of  a  mysterious  super¬ 
natural  grace,  not  accessible  in  any  other  way. 


RELIGION  AS  PERSONAL  EXPERIENCE  53 


may  see  in  it  a  dramatization  of  universal  truths, 
a  parabolic  representation  of  the  principles  of 
ethical  religion  in  which  alone  God  is  really  in¬ 
terested  and  through  which  alone  the  soul  com¬ 
munes  acceptably  with  Him.  According  to  this 
view  the  Sacrament  is  not  a  mysterious  rite  work¬ 
ing  ex  op  ere  operate,  through  which  an  otherwise 
inaccessible  divine  grace  is  conveyed  to  man.  It  is 
the  symbol  of  an  ever-present  divine  activity,  the 
means  through  which  the  soul,  refreshed  by  con¬ 
templation  of  the  divine  wisdom  and  goodness  may 
be  better  furnished  for  the  daily  task  of  fraternity. 

These  contrasts,  and  others  which  might  be 
added,  are  important  for  our  understanding  of 
historic  religion.  But  they  need  not  detain  us 
here.  The  three  great  types  which  are  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  our  present  study,  imperialism,  individual¬ 
ism,  and  democracy,  have  other  roots  and  can 
be  studied  by  themselves.  They  are  independent 
of  these  other  contrasts,  and  combine  with  them 
in  a  great  variety  of  ways.  But  they  cannot  be 
fully  understood  till  we  carry  our  analysis  of 
religion  one  step  further,  and  take  note  of  its 
social  manifestations. 

6.  The  Significance  of  the  Church  as  the  Institution 
of  Religion.  Its  Fivefold  Function  in  Worship, 
Education ,  Discipline ,  Service,  and  Pro¬ 
paganda 

For  religion,  like  all  permanent  human  in¬ 
terests,  is  a  social  affair.  It  develops  its  appro- 


54 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


priate  organization.  It  functions  through  in¬ 
stitutions  which  we  call  Churches,  which  in  turn 
are  divided,  as  we  have  seen,  into  sects  and 
schools,  which  may  in  time  become  independent 
units,  with  further  subdivisions  of  their  own. 

Again,  religion  has  a  history.  In  the  course 
of  this  history  the  existing  forms  are  constantly 
being  modified.  In  the  process  of  change  emerge 
the  contrasted  social  complexes  we  call  the 
religions.  Some  of  these  have  their  origin  in  the 
remote  past,  and  find  their  bond  of  union  in 
tribal  or  national  tradition.  Others  are  due  to 
the  initiative  of  an  individual  who  stamps  his 
character  upon  the  whole  succeeding  history. 
Buddhism,  Christianity,  Mohammedanism,  to  a 
less  extent  Judaism,  are  examples  of  such  founded 
religions.  The  same  is  true  of  many  of  the 
lesser  religious  units.  One  thinks  of  Francis  and 
of  Loyola  among  the  Catholics,  of  Wesley  and 
of  General  Booth  among  the  Protestants.  But 
all  alike — founded  or  ancestral  religions — are 
social  forms  of  religion.  They  are  churchly 
religions.  They  have  their  Bibles,  their  temples, 
their  ritual,  their  priesthood.  They  have  their 
laws  to  which  they  seek  to  secure  allegiance, 
their  schools  by  which  they  try  to  discipline 
character.  Many  of  them  are  missionary  re¬ 
ligions.  Some  of  them  aspire  to  be  world 
religions.  And  within  themselves  they  are 
divided  in  the  manner  which  we  have  already 
described.  When  these  inter-religious  divisions 
make  organization  their  principle  of  difference 


RELIGION  AS  PERSONAL  EXPERIENCE  55 


we  call  them  denominations  ;  when  they  find 
it  in  agreement  in  a  body  of  teaching  we  call 
them  schools  or  parties. 

The  contrast  we  are  to  study  in  these  pages 
emerges  in  relation  to  men's  attitude  to  these 
different  forms  of  religious  organization.  Im¬ 
perialism,  individualism,  and  democracy  are 
either  forms  of  churchly  religion,  or  can  only  be 
understood  as  a  protest  against  it. 

It  will  help,  therefore,  to  provide  us  with  a 
test  for  intelligent  comparison,  if  we  remind 
ourselves  briefly  of  the  purpose  which  Churches 
fulfil,  and  the  ways  in  which  they  function. 
Every  Church  worthy  the  name  has  at  least  five 
main  functions  which  it  discharges  in  the  life 
of  its  worshippers.  It  is  the  organ  of  their 
common  worship.  It  is  the  school  in  which  they 
are  instructed  in  the  meaning  of  their  religion. 
It  is  the  instrument  of  their  moral  discipline. 
It  is  the  agency  through  which  they  combine 
for  common  service.  Finally,  it  is  the  means 
through  which  the  tenets  of  their  religion  are 
propagated. 

The  Church  is  primarily  the  organ  of  common 
worship.  The  temple  is  the  characteristic  re¬ 
ligious  building,  found  in  all  countries  and  in  all 
ages.  The  priesthood  has  as  its  most  important 
function  to  mediate  between  the  worshippers 
and  their  deity,  and  to  lead  them  in  the  common 
acts  through  which  that  worship  may  find 
appropriate  expression.  No  change  in  the  theory 
of  religion  can  displace  worship  from  its  central 


56 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


place.  It  is  as  truly  first  in  the  silent  meeting 
of  the  Friends,  as  in  the  elaborate  ritual  of  the 
most  gorgeous  cathedral.  To  make  men  realize 
that  God  is,  and  that  He  is  the  rewarder  of  them 
that  diligently  seek  Him,  to  show  them  the 
ways  in  which  this  consciousness  may  be  aroused 
and  stimulated,  this  is  the  unique  and  dis¬ 
tinctive  function  of  the  Church,  the  world  over. 

The  Church  is  also  the  school  in  which  men 
are  instructed  in  the  meaning  of  their  religion. 
In  primitive  religion  this  instruction  was  very 
simple.  It  had  to  do  with  the  accepted  rites 
and  ceremonies,  and  how  they  were  to  be  rightly 
performed.  But  on  a  higher  grade  of  culture, 
instruction  becomes  an  increasingly  important 
function  of  the  Church.  The  sermon  is  added 
to  the  sacrament.  The  Sunday  school  takes  its 
place  beside  the  secular  school,  and  the  theo¬ 
logical  seminary  beside  the  law  school  and  the 
medical  school.  Especially  in  highly  organized 
religions  like  Christianity  and  Buddhism,  which 
presuppose  on  the  part  of  their  adherents  a  con¬ 
siderable  degree  of  knowledge,  the  function  of 
the  Church  as  a  teacher  of  doctrine  becomes 
important. 

With  teaching  goes  discipline.  This  is  notably 
true  of  the  ethical  religions.  But  every  religion 
which  has  a  Church  assumes  at  least  in  theory 
some  responsibility  for  the  conduct  of  its  ad¬ 
herents.  There  are  some  things  which  no  Church 
can  tolerate,  such  as  the  profanation  of  its  temples, 
or  the  neglect  of  its  ceremonies.  In  those 


RELIGION  AS  PERSONAL  EXPERIENCE  57 


religions  which  think  of  the  Deity  as  a  moral 
being,  the  source  of  public  law  and  the  guardian 
of  public  morals,  the  Church  is  concerned  with 
the  daily  lives  of  its  worshippers,  and  may  seek 
to  control  these  by  Church  court  or  confessional. 
In  mystical  religions,  where  attention  is  concen¬ 
trated  upon  the  relation  between  the  individual 
soul  and  God,  the  discipline  may  be  self-inflicted, 
and  the  assistance  of  the  Church  be  given  through 
the  code  of  rules  which  it  puts  into  the  hands 
of  the  devotee,  in  his  search  for  God. 

Discipline  is  accompanied  by  service.  The 
Church  is  not  only  responsible  for  developing  the 
character  of  its  worshippers.  It  has  work  for 
them  to  do.  The  nature  and  motives  of  this  work 
may  differ  widely,  but  in  all  the  ethical  religions 
at  least,  the  holiness  which  the  Deity  requires  of 
His  worshippers  includes  right  conduct  toward 
their  fellow-men.  Micah’s  famous  word  is  typical 
of  a  dominant  tendency  in  religion.  “  He 
hath  showed  thee,  O  man,  what  is  good ;  and 
what  doth  Jehovah  require  of  thee,  but  to  love 
justice,  and  to  show  mercy,  and  to  walk  humbly 
before  thy  God  ?  ”  1  Churches  exist  among  other 
things  to  show  man  what  God  requires,  and  to 
help  them  to  meet  that  requirement. 

Propaganda,  finally,  is  an  important  churchly 
function.  All  the  greater  religions  are  mis¬ 
sionary  religions,  and  their  Churches  are  the 
agencies  through  which  this  missionary  work 
is  carried  on.  Different  methods  are  used,  and 

1  vi.  8. 


58 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


the  extent  of  the  demand  upon  the  intelligence 
and  the  will  of  the  convert  varies.  Some  re¬ 
ligions  are  satisfied  with  very  little.  An  outward 
act  like  baptism  or  the  burning  of  incense  is 
enough.  Others  are  not  content  without  an 
inner  acceptance  of  the  doctrines  and  ideals  of 
the  faith.  To  secure  this  acceptance  elaborate 
methods  have  been  devised,  and  a  voluminous 
literature  has  been  brought  into  existence.  But 
underlying  all  this  is  a  common  conviction — 
the  conviction  that  the  truths  of  religion  have 
universal  significance,  and  that  a  believer  should 
do  his  utmost  to  make  them  known. 

This  analysis  will  make  it  easier  for  us  to 
appreciate  the  significance  of  the  contrasted 
types  which  we  have  distinguished.  The  repre¬ 
sentatives  of  each  approach  the  tasks  of  religion 
in  their  own  way.  Each  group  worships,  teaches, 
disciplines,  ministers,  evangelizes  in  the  way  that 
is  most  natural  and  congenial.  By  studying 
them  at  work  at  this  fivefold  task,  we  can  under¬ 
stand  the  genius  of  the  three  types  of  religious 
experience  which  we  have  called  imperialism, 
individualism,  and  democracy. 


7.  The  Creative  Element  in  Religion.  The  Con¬ 
tribution  of  History  to  Religion.  Institutional 
Religion  as  at  once  Enfranchising  and  Limiting 

One  further  contrast  needs  brief  mention  in 
order  to  bring  all  the  data  before  us  ;  and  that  is 
the  contrast  between  religion  as  a  creator  of  new 


RELIGION  AS  PERSONAL  EXPERIENCE  59 


values  and  as  a  conservator  of  values  which 
already  exist. 

Professor  Hocking,  in  his  illuminating  book, 
The  Meaning  of  God  in  Human  Experience }  has 
called  attention  to  the  creative  element  in  the 
religious  experience.  Wherever  we  meet  living 
religion  we  are  conscious  of  a  sense  of  power. 
Energies  are  released,  insights  achieved,  barriers 
broken  down.  Windows  are  opened  into  a  new 
world.  Doors  are  discovered  through  which  the 
spirit  at  the  end  of  its  former  resources  may  move 
forward  into  ampler  activities. 

“  I  can  do  all  things  in  Him  that  strengtheneth 
me  ”  ;  2  "  I  came  that  they  may  have  life,  and 
may  have  it  abundantly/'  3  This  fresh  and  virile 
note  meets  us  most  clearly  in  the  great  masters. 
But  it  is  present  wherever  the  individual  comes 
into  possession  of  a  vital  religious  experience. 
There  are  moments  in  the  life  of  every  truly 
religious  person  when  he  becomes  vividly  con¬ 
scious  of  the  presence  of  God,  and  these  moments 
are  accompanied  by  a  sense  of  inner  satisfaction 
and  by  a  certainty  which  is  its  own  best  evidence. 
This  irresistible  consciousness  of  the  presence  of 
God  is  the  psychological  basis  of  belief  in  miracle.4 
It  is  a  recurrent  element  in  religion,  found  in  all 
ages  and  in  all  religions. 

But  this  creative  element  is  present  in  different 

1  New  Haven,  1912.  2  Phil.  iv.  13.  3  John  x.  10. 

4  Cf.  W.  Adams  Brown,  “  The  Permanent  Significance  of 
Miracle  for  Religion,”  Harvard  Theological  Review ,  July  1915, 
p.  314  seq. 


60 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


individuals  in  different  degree,  and  in  the  same 
individual  in  different  degree  at  different  times. 
There  are  some  persons  who  never  seem  to  lose 
their  sense  of  the  presence  of  God.  They  are 
conscious  day  by  day  of  receiving  fresh  insight 
and  renewed  power  from  above.  And  what 
they  have  received  they  are  able  to  impart. 
Others  who  touch  them  catch  the  contagion  of 
their  faith,  and  are  lifted  above  themselves  to 
new  heights  of  vision  and  happiness.  We  call 
these  rare  spirits  prophets  or  saints.  They  are 
able  not  only  to  realize  God  for  themselves,  but 
to  mediate  His  presence  to  others.  The  words 
they  speak  live  after  them.  The  standards 
they  set  mould  later  lives. 

The  historic  religions,  at  least  the  greater 
and  best  known  of  them,  owe  their  existence  as 
separate  social  entities  to  the  contagion  of  such 
creative  religious  personalities.  To  be  sure  each 
of  these  creative  spirits  used  earlier  materials. 
Gautama  took  for  granted  the  older  religions  of 
India.  Mohammed  borrowed  both  from  Judaism 
and  from  Christianity.  Jesus  was  the  heir  of 
the  prophets.  But  each  saw  God  for  himself, 
and  each  was  able  to  create  fresh  vision  in  others. 
Those  who  came  after  looked  up  to  them  as 
masters,  and  by  touching  them  found  power  to 
see  God  for  themselves.  Their  memory,  handed 
down  in  reverent  tradition,  creates  similar 
experiences  in  succeeding  generations. 

In  this  process  of  transmission  an  indispens¬ 
able  part  is  played  by  the  institution.  We  saw 


RELIGION  AS  PERSONAL  EXPERIENCE  61 


that  institutions  are  the  means  which  society 
uses  to  protect  its  expanding  spiritual  life. 
Institutions  perpetuate  the  life-work  of  individuals 
by  creating  forms  through  which  those  who  come 
after  may  have  convenient  access  to  their  dis¬ 
tinctive  message.  They  guard  the  spiritual  gains 
of  the  past.  They  safeguard  the  nascent  spiritual 
life  of  the  present.  Churches  are  the  shells  of 
religion.  They  give  social  sanction  to  beliefs  and 
practices  which  have  proved  useful.  They  set 
a  standard  by  which  to  direct  energies  which 
without  such  direction  might  go  astray.  Without 
their  help  religion  could  not  be  perpetuated. 
But  this  service  is  rendered  at  a  price.  The 
shell  protects  the  expanding  life  within,  but 
there  comes  a  time  when  it  also  cramps  it.  There 
are  moments  when  the  fetters  placed  upon 
freedom  by  institutional  life  are  heavier  than 
can  be  borne.  There  is  then  no  alternative  but 
to  break  the  shell.  But  the  newly-won  freedom 
will  not  remain  long  unprotected.  It  must  make 
a  shell  of  its  own  in  order  to  endure. 

Happily  it  is  not  always  necessary  that  a 
break  should  take  place.  The  older  an  institu¬ 
tion  grows,  the  more  of  value  it  accumulates.  As 
it  moves  through  the  centuries  it  becomes  pos¬ 
sessed  of  great  traditions  and  a  great  literature. 
These  traditions  and  this  literature  may  stimulate 
insights  which  will  express  themselves  in  new 
ways.  Some  of  the  freest  spirits  who  have  ever 
lived  have  remained  all  their  lives  loyal  sons  of 
the  Church,  and  even  those  who  have  broken 


62 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


away  owe  their  impulse  to  her  teaching.  The 
Church  has  been  the  mother  of  the  Reformers. 

This  double  effect  of  history  as  at  once 
enfranchising  and  enslaving  may  be  studied  to  a 
greater  or  less  extent  in  all  the  greater  religions. 
Historic  Christianity — to  take  the  illustration 
most  familiar  to  us — has  been  at  once  the  nursery 
of  free  spirits  and  their  prison.  The  institution 
which  has  preserved  our  greatest  gifts — the 
knowledge  of  the  Master,  the  illumination  and 
stimulus  of  the  Bible,  the  communion  of  saints 
— has  altered,  often  debased  them.  This  has 
not  been  done  deliberately,  but  as  part  of  the 
inevitable  process  of  shell-building.  The  new 
values  come  to  men  in  specific  situations,  and 
they  react  accordingly.  They  carry  over  into 
a  new  religion  their  familiar  habits  and  beliefs. 
They  carry  over  also  their  differences  of  tempera¬ 
ment.  One  man  reacts  to  Jesus  in  one  way,  and 
another  in  another.  And  the  institutions  of  the 
developing  religion  are  modified  accordingly. 

Yet  through  all  the  vicissitudes  of  the  history, 
the  life  within  makes  itself  felt ;  not  always 
quickly  or  effectively,  but  unmistakably.  Each 
brings  his  own  needs  and  his  own  capacities  to 
the  great  tradition  which  the  Church  hands 
down,  and  each  finds  in  it  the  thing  which  meets 
his  deepest  need.  The  imperialist  sees  in  the 
founder  of  his  religion  the  head  of  the  Church, 
the  sovereign  of  the  universe,  the  judge  before 
whom  every  knee  must  bow.  The  individualist 
sees  in  him  a  hero  who  has  dared  to  break  with 


RELIGION  AS  PERSONAL  EXPERIENCE  63 


Church  and  State  and  stand  alone  for  the  truth. 
The  democrat  sees  in  him  the  first-born  of  many 
brethren,  the  founder  and  leader  of  a  new  society 
of  helpfulness.  But  each  is  persuaded  that  in 
his  own  type  of  experience  he  has  met  God,  and 
received  the  guidance  he  needs  for  his  own  life. 


CHAPTER  III 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION  :  ITS  NATURE 

AND  VARIETIES 

i.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  as  an  Example 
of  Imperialistic  Religion.  The  Church  as 
Mediator  between  God  and  Man 

OF  the  three  types  of  religion  contrasted 
in  previous  chapters,  the  one  which 
we  have  called  imperialistic  is  easiest 
to  describe.  The  imperialist  believes  that  he 
serves  God  best  when  he  submits  himself  com¬ 
pletely  to  the  control  and  service  of  a  definite 
organization  whose  triumph  in  the  world  he 
identifies  with  God's  will.  To  understand  the 
imperialist's  religion,  therefore,  we  must  know 
what  institution  commands  his  allegiance,  and 
what  that  institution  requires  of  him. 

One  characteristic  common  to  all  forms  of 
imperialistic  religion  strikes  us  at  the  outset. 
What  the  institution  asks  of  its  adherents  is  not 
merely  their  personal  obedience,  but  that  they 
should  make  its  requirements  their  standard 
for  judging  other  men.  There  are  forms  of  in¬ 
stitutional  religion  which  are  content  to  be  tribal 
or  national  religions,  without  denying  the  right  of 

64 


ITS  NATURE  AND  VARIETIES 


65 


other  religions  to  exist  by  their  side.  Imperialism 
is  a  missionary  religion.  Its  devotees  not  only 
find  satisfaction  in  submission  for  themselves  ; 
they  believe  that  it  is  best  for  every  one.  Imperi¬ 
alism  makes  heroes  and  martyrs.  It  has  made 
tyrants  and  persecutors  as  well. 

When  we  look  for  examples  of  imperialistic 
religion  we  think  most  naturally  of  ultramontane 
Roman  Catholicism  which  claims  world -wide 
dominion  and  demands  absolute  submission. 
This  religion  has  lasted  for  the  best  part  of  a 
millennium  and  in  its  beginnings  goes  back  many 
centuries  further.  Apparently  it  is  quite  as 
strong  as  ever  and  a  factor  to  be  reckoned  with 
in  the  life  of  to-day.  We  can  hardly  find  a  better 
object-lesson  in  imperialism  than  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church. 

Many  centuries  ago  a  remarkable  meeting 
took  place  at  Canossa.  It  was  an  interview 
between  an  Emperor  and  a  Pope.  The  Emperor 
was  the  most  notable  prince  in  Europe  —  a 
potentate  who  held  a  position  of  unexampled 
dignity  and  power.  But  he  came  to  Canossa 
as  a  suppliant  in  penitential  garb  to  prostrate 
himself  before  a  minister  of  religion  and  beg  his 
forgiveness  and  absolution.  It  was  not  force  of 
arms  alone  which  brought  him  there,  but  some 
intangible  power  of  the  Spirit.  To  understand 
imperialistic  religion  we  must  study  this  power, 
and  learn  what  it  meant  both  to  him  who 
exercised  it  and  to  him  upon  whom  it  was 
exercised. 


5 


66 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


One  word  of  caution  before  we  begin.  Let  us 
make  it  quite  clear  that  we  are  far  from  identifying 
Catholicism  with  imperialism.  The  Church  of 
Rome  is  a  majestic  edifice  which  has  been  long  in 
building.  Many  different  kinds  of  material  have 
gone  to  its  making.  The  influence  of  primitive 
Christianity  is  found  side  by  side  with  Greek 
philosophy  ;  the  mystical  sacramentarianism  of 
the  Eastern  cults,  with  the  legalism  of  Rome 
and  of  the  Germanic  invaders.  The  asceticism 
of  the  hermit  and  the  rapture  of  the  saint  have 
made  their  contribution,  but  also  the  acute 
intelligence  of  the  schoolman  and  the  savoir  faire 
of  the  man  of  the  world.  Many  different  kinds 
of  temperament  have  found  shelter  under  the 
Roman  roof  and  find  shelter  there  to-day,  and 
among  them — as  we  shall  see  later — are  in¬ 
dividualists  and  democrats.  But  whatever  else 
the  Roman  Church  may  be,  it  is  most  distinctively 
an  imperialistic  Church,  showing  the  character¬ 
istics  and  appealing  to  the  motives  which  I 
have  already  described.1 

We  begin  with  the  function  of  the  Church  as 
organ  of  worship.  The  Church  of  Rome  makes 
this  its  first  claim.  It  professes  to  be  the  one 
true  mediator  between  a  man  and  his  God. 
The  Church  alone  knows  who  and  what  God  is 
and  can  point  out  the  acceptable  way  of  wor¬ 
shipping  Him. 

Roman  Catholics  do  not  deny  that  even  apart 
from  the  Church,  man  can  attain  some  knowledge 

1  Cf.  Heiler,  Dev  Catholizismus ,  Munich,  1923. 


ITS  NATURE  AND  VARIETIES 


67 


of  God.  The  Church  teaches  that  there  is  some¬ 
thing  in  the  Deity  which  is  akin  to  man,  and 
hence  can  be  apprehended  by  reason.  This 
side  of  God's  being  is  revealed  in  the  orderly 
processes  of  nature,  and  may  be  defined  in  terms 
which  have  their  analogies  in  our  own  experi¬ 
ence,  terms  like  wisdom,  goodness,  righteousness, 
justice.  But  this  knowledge,  owing  to  our  sin¬ 
fulness  and  ignorance,  is  imperfect — and  even  if 
complete  would  be  insufficient  for  salvation. 
The  Church  accepts  this  natural  revelation, 
endorses  and  purifies  it,  but  its  peculiar  func¬ 
tion  is  to  tell  us  something  different  about 
God.  It  is  custodian  of  a  supernatural  revela¬ 
tion  which  is  wholly  unattainable  apart  from 
its  aid. 

This  higher  and  supernatural  revelation  the 
Church  has  formulated  in  certain  dogmas  such 
as  the  Trinity,  the  Incarnation,  and  the  Atone¬ 
ment.  These  dogmas  contain  mysteries  which 
neither  human  language  can  describe,  nor  human 
thought  conceive.  Yet  in  order  to  be  saved,  the 
believer  must  accept  them  as  true  in  the  form  in 
which  the  Church  presents  them.  Some  Catholic 
theologians  have  maintained  that  after  these 
doctrines  have  been  accepted  in  simple  faith, 
reason  may  find  a  meaning  in  them.  Some  saints 
have  been  persuaded  that  in  the  mystical  experi¬ 
ence  this  inner  meaning  has  been  revealed  to  them. 
But  most  devout  Catholics  have  been  convinced 
that  they  remain  mysteries  after  revelation  as 
before.  They  are  to  be  believed  as  a  part  of  the 


68 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


single  act  of  faith  by  which  a  Catholic  accepts 
the  voice  of  the  Church  as  the  voice  of  God.1 
The  one  sin  which  for  the  Catholic  admits  of  no 
forgiveness  is  unbelief,  and  unbelief  means  un¬ 
willingness  to  accept  at  the  full  value  and  in  the 
sense  that  the  Church  intends,  whatever  its 
authorized  representatives  may  teach. 

Newman's  testimony  on  this  point  is  illuminat¬ 
ing.  It  occurs  in  the  significant  passage  in  the 
Apologia,  in  which  he  describes  his  mental  atti¬ 
tude  after  he  had  made  the  act  of  submission. 

“  People  say  that  the  doctrine  of  transub- 
stantiation  is  difficult  to  believe.  I  did  not 
believe  the  doctrine  till  I  was  a  Catholic.  I  had 
no  difficulty  in  believing  it  as  soon  as  I  believed 
that  the  Catholic  Roman  Church  was  the  oracle 
of  God,  and  that  she  had  declared  this  doctrine 
part  of  the  original  revelation.  It  is  difficult, 
impossible  to  imagine,  I  grant,  but  how  is  it 
difficult  to  believe  ?  Yet  Macaulay  thought  it  so 
difficult  to  believe  that  he  had  need  of  a  believer 
in  it,  as  eminent  as  Sir  Thomas  More,  before  he 
could  bring  himself  to  conceive  that  the  Catholics 
of  an  enlightened  age  could  resist  *  the  over¬ 
whelming  force  of  the  argument  against  it.' 
‘  Sir  Thomas  More/  he  says,  ‘  is  one  of  the 
choice  specimens  of  wisdom  and  virtue — and 

1  The  difference  between  the  two  attitudes  may  be  repre¬ 
sented  by  the  two  contrasted  formulae,  Credo  ut  intelligam  and 
Credo  quia  impossibile  est ,  which  may  be  rendered  respectively : 
“  I  make  the  act  of  submission,  because  that  is  the  condition 
of  understanding  ”  ;  “  I  make  the  act  of  submission,  because  it 
is  of  the  very  nature  of  faith  to  accept  that  which  to  the  natural 
reason  is  incredible.” 


ITS  NATURE  AND  VARIETIES 


69 


the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  is  a  kind  of 
proof  charge.  A  faith  which  stands  that  test 
will  stand  any  test/  But  for  myself,  I  cannot 
indeed  prove  it.  I  cannot  tell  how  it  is,  but  I 
say,  *  Why  should  it  not  be  ?  What’s  to  hinder 
it  ?  What  do  I  know  of  substance  or  matter  ? 
Just  as  much  as  the  greatest  philosophers,  and 
that  is  nothing  at  all.’  ‘  So  much  is  this  the 
case  ’ — Newman  goes  on — *  that  there  is  a  rising 
school  of  philosophy  now,  which  considers 
phenomena  to  constitute  the  whole  of  our  know¬ 
ledge  in  physics.  The  Catholic  doctrine  leaves 
phenomena  alone.  It  does  not  say  that  the 
phenomena  go  ;  on  the  contrary,  it  says  that 
they  remain  ;  nor  does  it  say  that  the  same 
phenomena  are  in  several  places  at  once.  It 
deals  with  what  no  one  on  earth  knows  any¬ 
thing  about,  the  material  substances  themselves. 
And  in  like  manner  of  that  majestic  article  of 
the  Anglican  as  well  as  of  the  Catholic  creed, 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  Unity.  What  do 
I  know  of  the  essence  of  the  divine  being  ?  I 
know  that  my  abstract  idea  of  three  is  simply 
incompatible  with  my  abstract  idea  of  one  ;  but 
when  I  come  to  the  question  of  concrete  fact  I 
have  no  means  of  proving  that  there  is  not  a 
sense  in  which  one  and  three  may  equally  be 
affirmed  of  the  incommunicable  God.”  1 

In  these  words  scepticism  is  raised  to  the  dignity 
of  a  religious  virtue. 

But  it  may  well  be  asked,  How  does  this 
help  us  ?  What  does  it  profit  us  to  possess  the 
revelation  of  the  transcendent  God,  if  even  after 

1  Apologia  pro  Vitci  Sud,  London,  1873,  p.  239  seq. 


70 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


the  Church  has  put  us  in  possession  of  it,  it 
conveys  to  our  mind  no  definite  and  intelligible 
meaning  ?  The  Catholic  answers  that  God  has 
other  ways  of  imparting  Himself  than  through 
the  mind.  He  is  a  God  of  action  ;  and  that 
action  has  taken  the  form  of  a  series  of  redemp¬ 
tive  deeds  which  have  for  their  purpose  man’s 
salvation.  These  deeds  are  in  their  own  nature 
unintelligible.  They  are  miracles,  and  as  such 
unpredictable.  But  these  miracles  are  not  iso¬ 
lated  and  unrelated  phenomena.  They  have  suc¬ 
ceeded  one  another  in  a  regular  historic  succession, 
and  culminated  in  the  creation  of  an  institution 
which  makes  possible  the  contact  with  God 
which  the  soul  craves.  This  contact  is  mediated 
through  a  series  of  miraculous  acts  called  Sacra¬ 
ments.  In  the  Sacrament  the  divine  grace  lays 
hold  of  man  and  transforms  him  from  a  child 
of  nature  into  a  being  truly  supernatural.  The 
centre  of  these  miraculous  redemptive  acts  is  the 
Mass,  and  all  the  other  sacraments  are  to  be 
understood  either  as  preparations  for  it,  or  as  a 
means  of  carrying  further  forward  the  divine 
work  which  it  has  begun.  In  the  Mass  the 
transcendent  miracle  of  transubstantiation  takes 
place — a  miracle  through  which  the  believer  is 
enabled  to  feed  upon  the  very  body  and  blood 
of  his  Saviour  ;  and  what  is  more  wonderful  still, 
the  divine  sacrifice  on  Calvary  is  re-presented 
in  bloodless  form,  and  so  new  merit  is  created 
which  becomes  available  for  the  needs  of  new 
generations  of  sinners. 


ITS  NATURE  AND  VARIETIES  71 

Clearly,  then,  nothing  is  more  important  to 
the  devout  Catholic  than  faithful  attendance 
upon  this  central  rite  of  his  religion.  Here  in  a 
very  true  and  literal  way  he  meets  God  face  to 
face.  Here  in  his  own  personal  life  he  experi¬ 
ences  miracle.  "  I  felt  instinctively,”  once  said 
Tyrrell  in  an  illuminating  passage  which  de¬ 
scribes  an  experience  of  his  pre-Catholic  days, 
“  what  I  long  afterwards  understood  clearly, 
that  the  difference  between  an  altar  and  a 
Communion  table,  was  infinite/ ’  1 

About  this  central  act  of  the  Catholic  worship, 
there  gather  a  multitude  of  lesser  acts  recognized 
by  the  Church  and  carried  on  with  its  approval. 
That  only  is  true  worship  in  the  sense  in  which 
the  devout  Catholic  understands  that  term, 
which  the  Church  has  endorsed  and  which  it  can 
control. 

2.  The  Church  as  Regulator  of  Belief.  Different 
Attitudes  toward  Layman  and  Specialist 

Such  being  the  God  whom  the  Catholic 
worships,  and  such  the  manner  in  which  his 
worship  is  performed,  we  must  next  ask  how 
the  believer  is  prepared  to  worship  acceptably. 
This  leads  us  to  consider  the  function  of  the 
Church  as  a  teacher  of  religion — a  function 
scarcely  less  important  than  that  of  worship 
itself. 

So  far  as  theory  is  concerned,  the  Catholic 

1  Autobiography  of  George  Tyrrell,  London,  1912,  vol.  ii.  p.  98. 


72 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


position  is  simple.  The  ecclesia  docens  claims 
all  education  for  its  field.  It  makes  itself  re¬ 
sponsible  for  what  its  members  think  all  along 
the  line.  They  are  allowed  to  read  only  what 
it  prescribes.  They  are  expected  to  study  only 
where  it  permits.  There  is  no  phase  of  human 
experience,  no  department  of  human  research  to 
which  in  theory  at  least  this  principle  does  not 
apply.  No  phase  of  contemporary  activity, 
whether  it  be  economic,  political,  or  social,  but 
falls  within  the  purview  of  the  Church.  The 
encyclicals  of  the  Popes  would  furnish  material 
for  the  reconstruction  of  contemporary  history, 
and  the  Papal  syllabus  of  errors  would  serve  as 
a  convenient  introduction  to  the  study  of  con¬ 
temporary  philosophy.  When  one  realizes  how 
elusive  is  human  thought,  how  deep-seated 
human  curiosity,  this  claim  to  bring  every 
thought  into  captivity  to  the  obedience  of  Rome 
becomes  magnificent  in  its  audacity. 

Nor  does  the  theory  remain  merely  a  theory. 
It  is  carried  out  in  great  detail  through  an 
elaborate  machinery.  This  consists  in  part  of 
institutions  maintained  and  controlled  by  the 
Church.  These  institutions  begin  with  the 
parochial  school,  and  continue  to  the  university. 
In  these  institutions  the  child's  course  of  study 
is  prescribed  from  his  earliest  years,  and  carried 
on  through  his  period  of  professional  study. 
But  apart  from  its  own  schools,  the  Church  has 
agencies  by  which  it  attempts  to  control  the 
thought-life  of  the  Catholic  even  when  he  is 


ITS  NATURE  AND  VARIETIES 


78 


educated  in  secular  institutions.  The  Index  of 
prohibited  books  is  one  cog  in  this  complicated 
machine.  Some  years  ago  Henri  Lasserre,  a 
devout  French  Catholic,  was  cured  of  a  serious 
disease  by  the  Virgin  of  Lourdes.  In  gratitude 
for  this  signal  mercy  he  conceived  the  plan  of 
making  a  translation  of  the  four  Gospels  into 
modern  French,  so  that  the  story  of  the  great 
healer  might  be  made  accessible  to  the  multi¬ 
tudes  of  his  fellow-Catholics  in  France  who 
were  ignorant  of  it.  The  translation  was 
made  and  approved  by  the  Church ;  it  had  a 
success  beyond  the  author's  hope.  Multitudes 
of  French  Catholics  began  to  read  the  Gospels 
in  Lasserre's  rendering.  The  authorities  were 
alarmed.  They  did  not  know  whereto  this  thing 
might  grow.  The  imprimatur  was  withdrawn. 
Lasserre's  book  appeared  upon  the  Index,  and 
its  copies  disappeared  from  the  book-stores  of 
France. 

But  if  the  Church  exercises  such  strict  control 
over  the  reading  of  the  ordinary  Roman  Catholic, 
it  applies  a  very  different  standard  to  those  whom 
it  has  set  apart  for  its  ministry.  When  the 
candidate  has  been  sufficiently  tested  and  his 
grounding  in  the  faith  has  been  secured  beyond  a 
doubt,  there  is  no  branch  of  human  knowledge 
which  is  not  open  to  him.  For  the  Church  has 
work  to  be  done  in  the  world  of  men,  and  for  this 
its  servants  must  know  men,  and  the  thoughts 
of  men.  In  no  modern  schools  is  specialization 
carried  further  than  in  the  schools  of  Rome  ; 


74 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


for  no  form  of  practical  work,  save  possibly  that 
of  the  Great  General  Staff  alone,  are  men  so 
thoroughly  prepared.  Time  counts  for  nothing 
in  this  preparation.  It  may  take  five  years,  it 
may  take  twenty,  to  sharpen  the  tool  for  its 
uses.  An  English  gentleman  who  was  converted 
late  in  life  and  became  a  missionary  of  the  Society 
of  Jesus  to  the  Dyaks  of  Borneo,  was  required  to 
spend  three  years  in  mastering  the  Latin  tongue 
as  a  spoken  language,  before  the  preparation  for 
his  special  work  began.1  In  London  the  Church 
of  Rome  maintains  a  bureau  of  information  on 
all  Protestant  social  movements.  A  Settlement 
worker  in  Edinburgh  who  visited  the  Director 
found  him  more  completely  and  accurately  in¬ 
formed  as  to  the  present  state  of  social  thinking 
and  activity  among  Protestants  than  he  was 
himself. 

This  high  degree  of  specialization  is  made 
possible  because  of  the  Catholic  requirement 
of  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy.  Free  from  the  care 
of  wife  and  child,  the  priest  can  go  where  he  is 
sent,  stay  as  long  as  he  is  needed,  and  give  all 
the  time  that  is  required  for  the  performance  of 
any  specific  task.  A  further  help  in  the  training 
of  specialized  workers  is  furnished  by  the  orders, 
societies  of  selected  persons  banded  together  under 
a  definite  rule  of  life,  and  set  apart  for  special 
tasks  of  service.  Among  these  services,  education 
has  always  taken  a  foremost  place.  Many  of 

1  The  complete  training  of  a  Jesuit,  who  is  admitted  to  the 
inner  circle  of  the  Society,  requires  nineteen  years. 


ITS  NATURE  AND  VARIETIES 


75 


the  great  scholars  of  the  Catholic  Church  have 
been  monks.  In  the  sixth  century  Benedict  of 
Nursia  made  study  a  part  of  his  rule.  In  the 
thirteenth  century  Dominicans  and  Franciscans 
contended  for  mastery  of  the  field  of  learning. 
In  the  sixteenth  century  came  Ignatius  Loyola 
and  the  Society  of  Jesus.  To-day  it  is  still 
true  that  the  schools  of  Catholicism  are  largely 
conducted  by  the  orders. 

3.  The  Church  as  Director  of  the  Conscience. 

The  Penitential  System  and  its  Significance 

So  amazing  a  claim — a  claim  to  control  not 
simply  the  actions  of  men,  but  their  very 
thoughts — must  encounter  serious  opposition. 
Before  the  mind  can  be  mastered,  the  will  must 
be  subdued.  For  this  the  Church  has  devised 
an  elaborate  discipline.  For  the  ordinary  Chris¬ 
tian  this  is  exercised  through  penance  and  the 
confessional ;  for  the  more  heroic  and  excep¬ 
tional  spirits,  through  the  rules  of  the  different 
orders. 

The  penitential  system  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  is  one  of  the  most  extraordinary  instru¬ 
ments  that  the  ingenuity  of  man  has  ever  in¬ 
vented.  That  it  should  not  only  have  been 
conceived  but  put  into  practice  on  so  large  a 
scale  is  one  of  the  marvels  of  history.  By  this 
device  the  Church  attempts  to  reach  each  indi¬ 
vidual  of  all  its  millions,  keep  in  touch,  not  only 
with  his  acts,  but  with  his  thoughts  and  desires, 


76 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


and  prescribe  what  it  wishes  him  to  do  under 
conditions  which  give  the  best  promise  of  success. 
Rome  is  not  the  only  Church  which  has  tried  to 
exercise  such  control,  but  it  is  the  only  one  that 
has  even  measurably  succeeded.  An  intelligent 
Russian  was  once  requested  to  explain  the  peni¬ 
tential  discipline  of  the  orthodox  Church.  “  How 
far,”  he  was  asked,  “  does  your  theory  agree 
with  that  of  Rome  ?  ”  “  Our  theory,”  he  said, 

“  is  substantially  the  same  as  that  of  Rome — 
but,”  and  here  a  genial  smile  overspread  his  face, 
“  our  priests  are  very  good-natured.”  It  is  the 
story  of  a  great  part  of  historic  religion — the 
story  of  a  great  claim  nullified  by  the  practice 
of  those  who  make  it.  But  in  Rome,  at  least 
among  many  priests,  this  claim  to  discipline  the 
individual  is  taken  seriously,  and  the  confessional 
is  a  part  of  living  religion. 

A  prominent  American  layman  once  attended 
a  mission  at  the  Church  of  the  Paulist  Fathers 
in  New  York  City.  He  was  amazed  at  what  he 
saw.  At  five  o'clock  in  the  morning,  while  the 
city  was  still  dark,  the  church  was  crowded  with 
men.  “  Why  can  we  not  do  this,”  he  asked, 
“  in  our  Protestant  Churches  ?  ”  The  answer  is 
simple.  Give  the  minister  the  power  the  priest 
claims  and  persuade  the  people  that  he  really 
possesses  it,  and  you  can  crowd  your  churches 
with  worshippers  at  any  hour.  For  the  power 
that  filled  that  church  was  the  power  of  the  con¬ 
fessional,  and  the  power  of  the  confessional  is 
the  power  to  remit  or  to  reduce  the  temporal 


ITS  NATURE  AND  VARIETIES 


77 


penalty  of  sin,  both  in  this  life  and  in  that  which 
is  to  come.1 

I  am  well  aware  that  this  power,  as  defined 
by  Catholic  theologians,  is  confined  within  exact 
limits,  and  is  not  open  to  the  attacks  often 
made  against  it  by  ignorant  Protestant  con¬ 
troversialists.  It  is  not  the  power  to  forgive 
sins.  That  belongs  to  God  alone.  Still  less  is 
it  the  power  to  permit  sin.  It  is  the  power, 
after  appropriate  confession  and  repentance,  to 
remit  a  part  or  all  of  the  temporal  punishment 
of  sin,  by  substituting  a  less  disagreeable  equiv¬ 
alent.  Catholic  theology  distinguishes  a  double 
penalty  for  sin  : — the  eternal  penalty,  which  is 
the  loss  of  the  soul ;  the  temporal  penalty  through 
which  the  soul  is  purified  either  in  this  life,  or 
in  purgatory.  The  latter  consists  of  suffering, 
both  of  body  and  mind,  and  may  include  every 
torment  which  can  be  conceived  by  the  imagina¬ 
tion.  God  alone  can  remit  the  eternal  penalty 
of  sin.  But  the  Church  has  had  committed  to 
it  the  power  of  dispensing  with  its  temporal 
punishment.  When  one  reads  the  lurid  pages 
of  Dante's  Purgatorio  and  realizes  that  what  is 
there  described  is  believed  by  multitudes  of 
Catholics  to  be  actually  happening  to  countless 
human  beings,  among  whom  their  friends  or 
relatives  may  be  included ;  when,  on  the  other 

1  I  do  not  overlook  the  fact  that  the  disciplinary  function 
of  the  Confessional  is  only  one  phase  of  its  influence.  To  many 
who  use  it,  it  supplies  a  felt  need  for  direction  and  counsel,  of 
which  they  would  gladly  avail  themselves  even  if  the  practice 
of  confession  were  not  required. 


78 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


hand,  one  considers  how  easy  are  the  substitutes 
which  the  Church  provides,  a  pilgrimage,  the 
saying  of  certain  prayers,  attendance  at  certain 
services,  and  the  like, — it  is  not  strange  that  the 
appeal  to  weak  human  nature  should  be  strong, 
or  that  the  priests  who  make  it  should  wield  an 
extraordinary  power.1 

But  this  purely  negative  control,  which 
appeals  to  the  sense  of  fear  and  of  gain,  would 
never  of  itself  explain  the  power  of  Rome,  or 
account  for  its  continuing  influence.  There  are 
nobler  natures  who  cannot  be  thus  controlled, 
and  for  them  the  Church  has  another  and  a 
higher  message.  Its  appeal  is  not  to  the  fear 
of  purgatory,  but  to  the  love  of  heaven.  And 
not  the  distant  heaven  simply  which  will  come 
by  and  by,  but  the  heaven  which  may  open  in 
the  devout  soul  at  any  moment.  When  that 
moment  comes,  earth's  enticements  are  forgotten, 
and  the  spirit  stands  face  to  face  with  its  God 
in  ecstasy  indescribable.  But  there  is  a  price 
to  be  paid.  To  enjoy  this  communion — the  goal 
of  the  great  mystics  and  saints  of  all  ages — the 
body  must  be  disciplined,  the  desires  chastened, 
the  human  will  brought  into  subjection  to  the 
will  of  God.  This  discipline  requires  sacrifices 
far  more  rigorous  than  the  Church  asks  of  ordinary 
believers.  It  must  continue  through  long  years. 
It  may  lead  through  darkness  and  doubt.  It 
may  involve  the  loss  of  human  companionship, 
and  even — for  a  time — of  the  sense  of  the  divine 

1  Cf.  Heiler,  op.  cit.  pp.  269-275. 


ITS  NATURE  AND  VARIETIES 


79 


presence.  But  in  the  end  it  will  bring  its  reward. 
Greatest  of  all  the  gifts  the  Church  has  to  give 
is  the  knowledge  of  the  path  that  will  lead  the 
ardent  spirit  to  this  goal.  That  path  the  Church 
has  marked  out  in  the  rules  of  the  different  orders 
which  have  for  their  aim  the  cultivation  of  the 
higher  life. 


4.  The  Church  as  Confraternity  of  Service  and 
as  Centre  of  a  World-wide  Propaganda 

And  when  the  discipline  is  complete,  what 
then  ?  When  the  Roman  Church  has  trained  its 
converts — both  the  higher  and  the  lower — what 
will  it  do  with  them  ?  It  will  put  them  to  the 
two  main  uses  for  which  they  have  been  trained. 
It  will  use  them  in  a  fellowship  of  service.  It  will 
make  them  agents  of  its  propaganda. 

No  account  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
can  be  complete  which  does  not  emphasize  the 
fact  that  it  regards  its  converts  as  members  of  a 
confraternity  of  service.  Moral  theology  is  one 
of  the  three  great  branches  of  Catholic  theology, 
and  good  works  fill  an  even  larger  place  than 
dogma  in  the  creed.  But  the  works,  like  the 
doctrines,  are  rigidly  prescribed,  and  both  alike 
acquire  their  significance  because  of  the  setting 
in  which  the  Church  places  them. 

The  good  works  which  the  Church  prescribes 
are  of  two  kinds,  corresponding  to  the  distinction 
which  we  have  already  made  between  ceremonial 
and  ethical  religion.  In  part  they  consist  of  the 


80 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


regular  performance  of  the  ritual  of  religion, 
including  in  this  a  number  of  acts  of  worship 
and  devotion  which  have  no  immediate  connec¬ 
tion  with  the  formal  services  of  the  Church  ;  in 
part  they  consist  of  acts  of  kindliness  and  good¬ 
will  to  one's  fellow-men.  Charity  has  in  the  past 
played  a  great  role  in  Catholic  piety,  and  the 
giving  of  alms  has  been  regarded  as  a  good  work 
in  itself,  irrespective  of  its  effect  upon  the  recipient. 
Catholics  have  planted  their  hospitals  and  their 
orphanages  all  over  the  world,  but  in  the  main 
they  have  confined  their  ministry  either  to  their 
own  members  or  to  those  whom  they  hoped  to 
win  for  the  Church.  Recently,  however,  Catholic 
ethics  has  been  giving  more  attention  to  man's 
wider  social  relationships,  and  the  economic  and 
political  questions  raised  by  modern  industry 
are  being  carefully  studied  by  Catholic  scholars. 
The  conservative  attitude  taken  by  earlier 
Catholic  pronouncements  toward  the  existing 
social  order  is  giving  place  to  a  more  sympathetic 
and  discriminating  judgment.1  So  much  is  this 
the  case  that  a  certain  journalist  in  the  United 
States,  whose  interest  in  the  current  news  is  more 
in  evidence  than  his  knowledge  of  history,  has 
prophesied  that  it  would  be  the  Catholic  rather 
than  the  Protestant  Church  which  would  become 
the  champion  of  the  masses,  and  the  foremost 
leader  in  the  reform  of  the  present  social  system. 

1  Intelligent  Roman  Catholics  frequently  date  the  beginning 
of  this  change  from  the  well-known  Encyclical  of  Leo  xm.. 
Rerum  Novarum ,  1891. 


ITS  NATURE  AND  VARIETIES 


81 


How  far  this  will  prove  to  be  the  case,  the 
future  must  reveal.  But  those  who  entertain 
rosy  hopes  of  this  kind  will  do  well  to  remember 
that  the  test  by  which  the  Church  judges  all  good 
works,  whether  in  the  ceremonial  or  the  ethical 
sphere,  is  that  they  must  be  such  as  it  prescribes 
and  such  as  will  enhance  its  power.  If  it  must 
choose  between  the  ceremonial  and  the  ethical 
side  of  religion,  the  ceremonial  will  come  first. 
This  does  not  mean  that  the  performance  of 
ceremonial  acts  alone  is  sufficient  apart  from  in¬ 
ward  sincerity,  but  that  a  man’s  attitude  towards 
the  ordinances  of  the  Church  will  be  the  surest 
test  of  his  spiritual  state.  However  often  and 
however  far  a  man  may  fall  below  the  Church’s 
ethical  requirements,  if  he  retains  his  connection 
with  the  Church  and  continues  his  attendance 
upon  the  Sacrament,  he  has  access  to  a  divine 
resource  not  available  for  other  men.  But  if  he 
breaks  with  the  Church  he  throws  this  help 
away.1 

To  be  faithful  in  the  performance  of  one’s 
religious  duties,  then,  and  to  deal  justly  and 
kindly  with  one’s  neighbour  is  to  fulfil  Rome’s 
ethical  requirement  for  the  ordinary  Christian. 
But  for  the  exceptional  spirit  the  Church  has 
something  at  once  more  exacting  and  more  re¬ 
warding.  It  summons  him  to  the  great  task  of 

1  This  was  the  excuse  given  by  a  Roman  Catholic  priest  to 
a  friend  of  mine,  a  neighbouring  Protestant  minister,  for  failing 
to  discipline  one  of  his  parishioners  who  was  responsible  for 
maintaining  a  particularly  demoralizing  saloon  which  was  corrupt¬ 
ing  the  boys  of  the  community. 

6 


82 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


winning  for  the  Church  the  entire  world.  For 
him  service  becomes  propaganda. 

This  lies  in  the  genius  of  imperialistic  religion. 
To  one  who  holds  the  Catholic  faith,  there  can 
be  no  service  comparable  to  winning  one's  fellow- 
men  to  the  allegiance  of  Mother  Church.  The 
more  intelligent  one  is,  the  more  clearly  one  will 
see  this  ;  the  more  unselfish  he  is,  the  more 
keenly  he  will  feel  it.  When,  after  long  wander¬ 
ing,  Newman  found  his  way  to  Rome  at  last,  it 
was,  he  says,  like  coming  into  port  after  long 
tossing  on  the  open  sea.  A  generous  spirit  would 
sacrifice  all  that  he  has  to  share  such  a  gift 
with  others.  And  could  he  scruple  at  any  step 
necessary  to  make  such  sharing  possible  ? 

It  is  only  against  this  background  that  we  can 
understand  the  ethics  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
propaganda.  It  is  the  ethics  of  militant  im¬ 
perialism  everywhere — the  ethics  of  war,  not  of 
peace,  though  for  the  Roman,  as  for  most  other 
imperialists,  the  ultimate  goal  is  a  peace  that 
shall  know  no  end.  This  consciousness  of  a 
divine  commission  to  dominate  at  all  costs  explains 
the  puzzling  and  unlovely  features  of  Catholic 
apologetic,  its  lack  of  frankness,  its  willingness 
to  yield  all  for  the  one  thing  necessary.  This 
explains,  too,  the  ruthless  attitude  toward  irre¬ 
concilable  opponents — the  index,  the  inquisi¬ 
tion,  and  the  stake.  This  explains  finally  the 
elaborate  machinery  through  which  missionaries 
are  trained  and  marshalled — the  Congregation 
of  the  Propaganda  and  the  Society  of  Jesus.  They 


ITS  NATURE  AND  VARIETIES 


83 


are  the  tools  which  Rome  uses  in  pursuit  of  its 
one  supreme  end,  the  world-wide  triumph  of 
that  Church  whose  victory  is  identified  with  the 
will  of  God. 


5.  Other  Examples  of  Imperialistic  Religion.  The 
Religion  of  the  State  and  of  the  Militant  Sect 

We  have  tried  as  fairly  and  objectively  as  we 
could  to  picture  imperialistic  religion  as  it  is 
illustrated  in  the  greatest  of  its  examples — the 
Church  of  Rome.  But  it  is  the  type  we  are 
primarily  interested  in,  not  this  particular 
example  of  it.  The  example  we  have  been 
studying  is  a  form  of  churchly  religion.  It 
identifies  submission  to  the  organized  Church 
with  the  doing  of  God's  will.  But  this  is  by  no 
means  the  only  illustration  we  might  have 
chosen.  Besides  its  churchly  form,  imperialism 
has  at  least  two  other  forms  which  have  played 
a  great  role  in  history,  the  religion  of  the  State, 
and  the  religion  of  the  militant  sect.1  The  first 
— the  religion  of  the  State — teaches  men  to  see 
in  the  triumph  of  the  State  the  fulfilment  of 
God's  purpose,  and  in  submission  to  the  State 
the  doing  of  God's  will.  The  second — the  re¬ 
ligion  of  the  sect — identifies  God's  will  with  a 
definite  set  of  tenets  embodied  in  a  Bible 

1  On  the  points  in  which  sectarianism  differs  from  the  more 
consistent  forms  of  imperialism,  cf.  chap.  iv.  pp.  125-129.  It 
will  there  be  shown  that  sectarianism  is  a  compromise  between 
individualism  and  imperialism. 


84 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


or  a  creed  and  explained  by  certain  qualified 
interpreters.  Each  of  these  religions  demands 
complete  submission.  Each  aims  at  universal 
dominion.  In  each  case  we  have  to  do  with  a 
religion  which  exhibits  all  the  marks  of  im¬ 
perialism. 

There  is  thus  a  wide  field  for  choice  in  our 
study  of  imperialistic  religion.  If  we  had  taken 
our  illustration  from  the  religion  of  the  State 
we  should  have  approached  the  subject  from  a 
different  angle,  and  should  possibly  have  received 
a  fresher  and  more  stimulating  impression.  We 
might  have  studied  the  imperialism  of  ancient 
Rome,  or  Shinto,  the  true  religion  of  modern 
Japan,  in  which  Emperor  worship  is  the  symbol 
of  a  militant  religion.  We  might  have  chosen 
for  our  illustration  that  greatest  of  the  historic 
examples  of  theocratic  religion  in  which  Church 
and  State  have  for  centuries  been  combined  in 
the  person  of  a  single  ruler — Islam.1  Or  again, 
we  might  have  found  our  example  in  the  most 
signal  contemporary  illustration  of  modern 
nationalism,  the  German  religion  of  the  State, 
or  its  international  counterpart  in  revolutionary 
socialism.  In  all  these  cases  we  should  have 
been  dealing  with  true  religions,  appealing  to 
the  same  motives  and  expressing  themselves  in 
similar  forms  of  organization  and  activity.  Any 
explanation  of  Germany's  part  in  the  great  war 
breaks  down  which  does  not  recognize  that 

1  Whether  the  present  separation  of  Church  and  State  in 
Islam  will  prove  permanent,  only  the  future  can  decide. 


ITS  NATURE  AND  VARIETIES 


85 


modern  Germany  is  an  example  of  imperialistic 
religion.  We  need  only  substitute  the  word 
“  State  ”  for  the  word  “  Church  ”  and  much 
that  we  have  been  saying  of  Rome  will  apply 
without  change.  In  this  modern  imperialistic 
State  we  find  the  same  dualistic  ethics,  the  same 
insistence  that  the  State  is  removed  from  the 
control  of  the  individual  moral  standard.  There 
is  the  same  limitation  of  freedom  within  the 
spheres  which  are  judged  as  inimical  to  the 
welfare  of  the  State.  There  is  the  same  pro¬ 
vision  for  the  need  of  the  individual  through  a 
mystic  piety  which  does  not  concern  itself  with 
economics  or  politics,  side  by  side  with  the 
demand  for  highly  trained  specialists  whose 
whole  lives  are  given  to  the  service  of  the  State. 
There  is  the  same  appeal  to  the  spirit  of  conquest, 
the  same  sense  of  a  God-given  mission,  the  same 
pretension  to  fit  every  man  into  his  place  in  the 
life  of  the  whole.  Above  all,  there  is  the  deep 
conviction,  which  no  one  who  really  knows  the 
German  people  can  have  failed  to  note,  that  in 
serving  the  State  one  is  serving  God  ;  in  putting 
“  Deutschland  fiber  alles  ”  one  is  doing  God’s 
will  for  mankind.  Dean  Inge,  with  his  usual 
insight,  points  out  an  unsuspected  significance 
in  this  deification  of  the  State  in  Germany  when 
he  attributes  it  to  an  unsatisfied  instinct  of 
worship.1 

It  is  needless  to  say  that  in  taking  modern 
Germany  as  an  example  of  imperialistic  religion 

1  Outspoken  Essays,  i.  p.  255. 


86 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


we  are  not  identifying  the  German  people  as  a 
whole  with  this  particular  type  of  mentality, 
any  more  than  we  would  assert  that  all  Roman 
Catholics  are  imperialists  in  the  character  of 
their  religious  life.  The  Germany  of  the  Kaiser 
and  the  imperial  General  Staff  is  not  some  strange 
portent  revealing  the  fact  that  the  Germans 
belong  to  a  different  race  of  beings  from  other 
men,  and  must  therefore  be  permanently  ostra¬ 
cized  from  the  society  of  their  fellows,  but  is 
only  a  new  illustration  of  the  fact  that  like  causes 
produce  like  results,  and  that  if  you  treat  men 
who  call  themselves  Protestants  in  the  imperial¬ 
istic  way  for  a  long  enough  time  you  will  get 
the  kind  of  result  the  Catholic  gets. 

But  we  must  not  suppose  that  Germany  has 
any  monopoly  of  the  imperialistic  spirit  in  religion. 
This  spirit  is  found  in  many  men  whose  political 
philosophy  stands  at  the  opposite  pole  from 
hers.1  Revolutionary  Socialism  is  a  striking 

1  Rousseau  was  an  uncompromising  opponent  of  the  auto¬ 
cracy  of  his  day,  but  he  has  this  to  say  of  the  demands  which 
the  new  democratic  State  which  he  would  substitute  may 
rightfully  make  upon  its  citizens.  “  There  is  a  purely  civil 
profession  of  faith  of  which  the  Sovereign  should  fix  the  articles, 
not  exactly  as  religious  dogmas,  but  as  social  sentiments  without 
which  a  man  cannot  be  a  good  citizen  or  a  faithful  subject. 
While  it  can  compel  no  one  to  believe  them,  it  can  banish  from 
the  State  whoever  does  not  believe  them, — it  can  banish  him 
not  for  impiety,  but  as  an  anti-social  being,  incapable  of  truly 
loving  the  laws  and  justice,  and  of  sacrificing  at  need  his  life 
to  his  duty.  If  any  one  after  publicly  recognizing  these  dogmas 
behaves  as  if  he  did  not  believe  them,  let  him  be  punished  by 
death  ;  he  has  committed  the  worst  of  all  crimes,  that  of  lying  to 
the  law.”  Social  Contract ,  Eng.  trans.,  New  York,  1913,  p.  121. 


ITS  NATURE  AND  VARIETIES 


87 


example  of  imperialistic  religion  and  maintains 
its  hold  by  an  appeal  to  the  same  combination 
of  motives.  More  than  one  Protestant  sect  owes 
its  success  to  similar  influences,  and  could  not 
exist  were  it  not  for  the  desire  in  men  to  rule  and 
to  be  ruled.  A  recent  striking  illustration  is  the 
militant  premillenarianism  which  has  recently 
been  sweeping  over  wide  sections  of  the  United 
States,  attacking  the  orthodoxy  of  those  who  do 
not  accept  its  tenets  and  trying  to  extend  its 
control  to  the  foreign  field  as  well.  The  spirit 
of  Rome,  expelled  in  theory,  still  lives  on  in 
groups  that  would  most  indignantly  repel  any 
such  association. 

Imperialism,  we  repeat,  is  the  monopoly  of  no 
age  or  social  group.  Rome  is  what  it  is,  and  has 
done  what  it  has  done,  because  there  is  something 
in  men  to  which  imperialism  appeals.  Till  we 
perceive  this  we  shall  not  have  learned  our  lesson, 
nor  have  understood  the  world  in  which  we  are 
living. 

6.  Motives  to  which  Imperialistic  Religion  appeals. 
Its  Provision  for  Men  of  Other  Types.  In¬ 
consistency  of  its  Representatives 

What,  then,  is  this  “  something  in  man  ” 
to  which  imperialistic  religion  appeals  ?  It  is 
not  simple  but  complex,  and  its  emphasis  varies 
from  time  to  time  and  from  person  to  person. 
In  a  recent  address  Mr.  John  Drinkwater  de¬ 
clared  that  all  the  people  who  really  matter  in 


88 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


the  world  can  be  divided  into  two  classes,  those 
who  desire  to  dominate  and  those  who  desire 
to  understand.  But  there  is  one  great  group 
which  this  classification  leaves  out, — those  who 
desire  to  be  dominated.  These  are  by  no  means 
all  weaklings.  Ignatius  Loyola  belonged  to  this 
class,  and  Cardinal  Manning,  and  many  another 
personality  no  less  forceful.  Unless  we  recognize 
the  existence  of  this  type  and  understand  its 
psychology,  we  cannot  hope  to  measure  the  appeal 
of  imperialistic  religion.  Imperialism  offers  men 
an  external  authority.  It  satisfies  their  desire 
for  safety,  for  certainty,  for  relief  from  the  burden 
of  ultimate  decision.  It  meets  their  hunger  with 
great  promises.  “Trust,  and  you  will  know  the 
truth.  Serve,  and  you  will  be  safe.”  But 
imperialism  has  something  for  those  who  desire 
to  dominate  as  well.  To  them  it  offers  a  task  of 
world  conquest  beside  which  that  of  Caesar  or 
Napoleon  pales  into  insignificance.  They  are 
God's  vicegerents  in  the  task  of  subduing  a 
rebellious  humanity.  The  Church  can  use  every 
talent  they  command,  and  can  reward  success 
with  office  and  power.  Its  field  of  service  is 
international ;  its  stake  domination  over  the 
spirits  of  men.  A  religion  that  can  combine  two 
motives  so  inconsistent,  that  can  appeal  both  to 
the  conquering  spirit  and  to  the  conquered,  giving 
each  what  he  most  desires,  is  a  religion  to  be 
reckoned  with. 

With  these  outstanding  motives  are  combined 
others  scarcely  less  influential.  There  is  the  love 


ITS  NATURE  AND  VARIETIES 


89 


of  antiquity,  of  which  we  have  already  spoken, 
the  satisfaction  that  comes  from  the  embodiment 
of  truth  in  changeless  and  easily  accessible  forms. 
There  is  the  appeal  of  unity,  the  dream  of  a 
religion  and  of  a  civilization  which  shall  be  literally 
world-wide.  There  is  the  joy  that  men  have  in 
mystery,  and  the  thrill  that  comes  to  them 
through  beauty.  Sacramentarian  religion  is  not 
the  same  as  imperialistic  religion  ;  but  sacra- 
mentarianism  is  a  form  of  religion  which  is 
congenial  to  imperialism  and  of  which  it  has 
made  wide  use.  All  these,  and  more  beside,  are 
influences  which  the  imperialist  can  command 
as  he  makes  his  appeal  to  the  spirit  of  man. 

For  those  who  are  not  of  his  own  type,  too, 
the  imperialist  has  something  of  value.  We 
have  already  pointed  out  that  no  one  of  the  three 
types  we  have  been  studying  is  perfectly  embodied 
in  any  existing  form  of  historic  religion.  All 
historic  religions  are  to  a  greater  or  less  extent 
compromises.  They  include  within  them  men 
and  women  of  many  and  often  inconsistent 
types  of  religious  experience,  and  their  institu¬ 
tions  are  so  shaped  as  to  minister  as  best  they 
can  to  these  differing  needs. 

Not  the  least  interesting  aspect  of  con¬ 
temporary  Roman  Catholicism  is  the  provision 
it  makes  for  temperaments  of  different  types. 
To  the  individualist  Rome  offers  the  quest  of 
personal  salvation,  to  the  democrat  the  com¬ 
munion  of  saints.  For  the  ordinary  Christian 
the  expression  of  personal  initiative  takes  the 


90 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


form  of  a  series  of  choices  to  use  the  means  which 
the  Church  provides  to  ensure  the  soul's  salva¬ 
tion  ;  for  the  saint  a  shorter,  if  a  more  arduous, 
way  is  opened  in  the  mystical  experience.  In 
these  and  similar  ways  Rome  holds  to  its  allegiance 
many  whose  strong  individuality  no  one  can 
deny. 

Even  in  the  realm  of  thought,  where  its 
censorship  is  strictest,  Rome  provides  some  scope 
for  the  freedom  of  the  individual.  When  it 
comes  to  matters  of  faith  and  morals,  there  can 
be  but  a  single  spokesman,  and  all  good  Catholics 
will  yield  him  implicit  obedience.  But  even  when 
the  Pope  speaks  ex  cathedra ,  he  does  not  speak 
out  of  a  vacuum.  He  acts  as  interpreter  of  the 
tradition  of  the  past,  and  that  tradition  has  been 
built  up  gradually  through  the  co-operation  of 
many  minds,  and  is  still  in  the  making.  In  its 
shaping  each  Catholic  scholar  may  hope  to  share. 
And  even  when  the  Church  has  spoken,  and  the 
limits  of  free  inquiry  have  been  defined,  there 
remains  always  the  question  what  the  decision 
means.  Newman  in  his  Apologia  has  reminded 
us  of  the  large  place  which  Catholic  theory 
leaves  open  to  private  judgment.1  The  doctrine 
of  papal  infallibility  opens  new  possibilities  of 
adjustment.  This  doctrine  has  often  been 
attacked  as  binding  the  Church  to  the  decisions 
of  the  past,  but  it  may  equally  be  regarded  as 
a  means  of  emancipation  from  the  tyranny  of 
history.  In  his  interpretation  of  tradition,  the 

1  Op.  cit.  p.  252. 


ITS  NATURE  AND  VARIETIES 


91 


Pope  may  bring  out  some  fresh  aspect  of  an 
old  truth  which  will,  in  fact,  be  a  new  departure. 
In  preparing  the  way  for  such  a  reinterpreta¬ 
tion,  the  inquiring  spirit  may  find  scope.  The 
Modernist  movement  is  an  interesting  illustra¬ 
tion  of  the  attitude  I  have  in  mind.  As  a  loyal 
son  of  the  Church  the  Modernist  accepts  his 
condemnation  for  to-day.  But  in  his  heart  of 
hearts  he  may  still  hope  that  some  later  pro¬ 
nouncement  will  prove  him  in  the  right  after 
all,  and  the  supposed  heresy  of  yesterday  become 
the  orthodoxy  of  to-morrow.1 

Similar  concessions  to  the  spirit  of  inde¬ 
pendence  are  made  in  other  forms  of  imperialistic 
religion.  Modern  Imperial  Germany  offers  an 
instructive  example  of  such  accommodation. 
In  art,  in  administration,  in  scholarship,  the 
individual  was  given  widest  scope  for  his  self- 
expression.  But  there  were  limits  which  could 
not  safely  be  passed.  Theologians  might  be  as 
critical  as  they  pleased  of  the  Church,  past  and 
present,  but  to  attack  the  State  would  be  to 
run  counter  to  deep-seated  religious  convictions. 
Even  Ritschl,  most  independent  of  all  German 
theologians  of  his  generation,  taught  that  the 
principles  of  Christian  morality  which  govern 
the  conduct  of  the  individual  do  not  apply  to 
the  State.2 

1  This  is  possible  because  the  condemnation  of  a  view  does 
not  necessarily  mean  that  it  is  false.  It  may  mean  only  that 
it  is  misleading,  or  dangerous. 

2  Cf.  Unterricht  in  der  Christlichen  Religion  (1875),  Eng- 
trans.,  New  York,  1901,  p.  246. 


92 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


And  what  is  true  of  the  different  social 
groups  is  true  also,  though  not  to  so  great  an 
extent,  of  the  different  individuals  who  compose 
them.  They,  too,  are  not  consistent  wholes,  but 
living  compromises  between  different  and  often 
inconsistent  philosophies.  When  we  call  a  man 
an  imperialist  or  a  democrat,  it  is  always  a 
question  of  more  or  less.  There  is  something 
of  the  imperialist  in  each  one  of  us,  something  of 
the  individualist,  something  of  the  democrat ; 
and  bitterly  as  we  resent  the  presence  of  these 
rival  views  in  others,  we  are  still  more  uncom¬ 
fortable  when  we  detect  them  in  ourselves.  It 
is  this  fact  which  makes  our  present  study  so 
important.  It  is  a  good  thing  to  know  how  to 
think  of  our  neighbours.  It  is  better  to  know 
how  to  think  of  ourselves.  Let  us  hope  we  may 
find  enough  of  each  of  the  three  types  we  shall 
study  in  ourselves  to  make  us  appreciative  of 
those  who  have  gone  farther  along  the  roads  we 
have  not  taken  than  we  have  cared  to  go.  Heresy 
hunting  is  a  peculiarly  ignoble  form  of  fear  ;  it  is 
often  the  heretic  in  himself  whom  the  inquisitor 
is  really  trying  to  burn  at  the  stake,  when  he  piles 
the  faggots,  and  kindles  the  fire.  If  he  were  surer 
of  himself,  he  would  be  more  tolerant. 


7.  Strength  and  Weakness  of  Imperialistic 
Religion.  Its  Place  in  the  History  of  Religion 

Such,  then,  is  imperialistic  religion,  and  such 
are  the  ways  in  which  it  deals  with  the  desires 


ITS  NATURE  AND  VARIETIES 


93 


and  impulses  which  strain  against  its  leash.  How 
shall  we  judge  it,  and  what  place  shall  we  assign 
it  in  man's  many-sided  religious  life  ? 

First  of  all,  we  must  judge  it  sympathetically. 
We  must  see  it  as  it  appears  from  the  inside,  in 
the  lives  of  those  who  find  their  satisfaction  in 
it.  We  cannot  deny  that  many  great  spirits 
have  found  God  in  this  way  ;  that  many  beautiful 
souls  have  blossomed  under  its  influence.  We 
cannot  regard  as  wholly  evil  a  tree  which  has,, 
borne  such  fruit. 

Secondly,  we  must  admit  that  as  a  transient 
type — a  stage  in  the  history  of  religion  as  a 
whole — it  has  performed  useful,  possibly  indis¬ 
pensable,  services.  It  has  disciplined  undiscip¬ 
lined  races.  It  has  subdued  rebellious  wills. 
In  ages  when  every  man's  hand  was  against  his 
neighbour,  it  has  reminded  him  of  a  higher 
allegiance.  It  has  been  a  civilizing  and  a  human¬ 
izing  agency.  It  has  been  a  shelter  under  which 
other  types  of  religion  have  been  nurtured  and 
grown  to  maturity,  even  though  their  representa¬ 
tives  have  not  been  content  to  remain  per¬ 
manently  beneath  that  shelter.  It  has  been 
the  patron  of  art,  and  even  of  science.  It  has 
opened  the  way  for  countless  spirits  into  the  felt 
presence  of  God.  No  one  can  hope  to  under¬ 
stand  the  history  of  the  race,  or  to  follow  the 
steps  by  which  we  have  climbed  to  where  we  are, 
who  does  not  take  generous  account  of  the  con¬ 
tribution  of  imperialistic  religion. 

But  we  must  go  farther  than  this.  Imperial- 


94 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


ism  is  not  simply  a  stage  in  the  history  of  religion. 
It  is  a  recurrent  and  apparently  a  permanent 
religious  type.  There  are  men  and  women  whose 
religious  needs,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  will  always 
be  met  in  this  way.  There  are  tasks  to  be  per¬ 
formed  for  which  a  religion  of  this  kind  is  the 
most  convenient  instrument.  We  may  not  our¬ 
selves  like  it.  We  may  perceive  clearly  its  limita¬ 
tions  and  its  defects — we  may  go  farther  and  say, 
the  dangers  with  which  it  threatens  other  and,  as 
we  may  believe,  finer  forms  of  religion.  Still  here 
it  is,  a  fact  to  be  reckoned  with,  a  force  to  be 
taken  into  account ;  and  not  in  others  only,  but 
in  ourselves. 

But  when  we  have  said  this,  we  must  go  on 
to  say  that,  great  as  it  is,  it  can  never  hope  to  be 
the  final  or  highest  form  of  religion.  It  does 
too  great  violence  to  profound  needs  in  human 
nature.  It  follows  its  great  goal  in  too  crude  and 
external  a  way.  It  rouses  convictions  too  deep, 
stirs  opposition  too  sincere  ever  to  hope  for 
complete  victory.  What  these  convictions  are 
and  what  the  forms  in  which  they  find  expression, 
we  shall  study  in  succeeding  chapters. 


CHAPTER  IV 


THE  INDIVIDUALISTIC  PROTEST  AGAINST 

IMPERIALISM 

i.  What  is  meant  by  Individualistic  Religion. 
Positive  and  Negative  Individualism 

IN  our  last  chapter  we  considered  imperialism 
— a  widespread  form  of  social  religion  which 
identifies  loyalty  to  God  with  complete 
submission  to  some  existing  institution  believed 
to  be  God’s  spokesman  and  representative  on 
earth.  We  saw  that  this  institution  need  not 
necessarily  be  a  Church.  The  State  may  be 
regarded  as  the  supreme  organ  of  God’s  will  or 
some  militant  sect.  We  found  that  for  us  the 
most  striking  and  instructive  example  of  im¬ 
perialistic  religion  was  the  Church  of  Rome. 
We  studied  in  turn  the  worship,  the  education, 
the  discipline,  the  service,  and  the  propaganda 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  We  considered 
the  needs  to  which  it  appeals,  the  satisfaction 
which  it  promises.  We  saw  that  it  has  much  to 
offer  the  individual ;  that  it  presents  a  wide  field 
for  his  activity  and  for  his  thought.  But  it 
does  not  go  far  enough  for  the  more  independent 
spirits.  Sooner  or  later  there  comes  a  break. 

95 


96 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


A  man  must  choose  between  submission  and  self- 
expression,  the  sacrifice  of  himself  in  the  interest 
of  the  institution,  or  the  assertion  of  his  own 
conscience  at  any  cost.  When  that  time  comes 
a  new  type  of  religion  is  born.  Such  a  type  we 
are  now  to  study.  We  have  called  it  individual¬ 
istic  religion. 

It  seems  as  if  the  title  were  a  misnomer. 
Individual  religions  we  can  understand.  But 
can  we  speak  of  individualistic  religion  ?  Is  not 
the  very  genius  of  individualism  that  it  refuses 
to  conform  to  type  ?  To  the  superficial  view  this 
seems  the  case.  Yet  in  spite  of  all  differences 
which  separate  one  individualist  from  another 
we  shall  find  that  there  are  certain  psychological 
attitudes  which  differentiate  them  from  persons 
of  another  type.  These  common  qualities  we 
are  now  to  study.  Our  description  of  them  will 
give  us  our  definition  of  individualistic  religion. 

By  individualistic  religion  we  shall  mean  a 
form  of  religion  whose  representatives  despair 
of  satisfaction  through  any  existing  institution, 
and  find  solace  in  immediate  communion  between 
the  individual  soul  and  God.  It  is  the  religion 
which  William  James  studies  in  his  Varieties  of 
the  Religious  Experience :  “  the  religion  of  in¬ 
dividual  men  in  their  solitude,  so  far  as  they 
apprehend  themselves  to  stand  in  relation  to 
whatever  they  may  consider  the  divine/'  The 
individualist  does  not  desire  the  intrusion  of  other 
personalities  into  his  relation  to  God.  He  may 
use  other  men  as  guides  to  the  door  of  the  temple. 


PROTEST  AGAINST  IMPERIALISM 


97 


but  he  leaves  them  behind  when  he  enters  ;  he 
may  find  them  again  when  he  has  withdrawn, 
but  always  with  a  sense  of  disillusionment,  such 
as  the  disciples  felt  when  they  descended  from  the 
Mount  of  Transfiguration. 

What  is  true  of  other  persons  is  true  also  of 
institutions.  To  the  consistent  individualist  the 
claim  of  the  Church  to  control  his  personal 
religious  life  seems  an  impertinence.  Liberty, 
not  submission,  appears  to  him  the  genius  of 
true  religion.  When  a  man  is  truest  to  himself 
he  is  most  religious.  When  he  is  most  free  from 
the  shackles  of  tradition,  most  original  and  in¬ 
dependent,  he  becomes  most  conscious  of  those 
eternal  verities  which  transcend  time  and  space, 
and  is  closest  to  God. 

It  is  not  meant,  of  course,  that  the  individualist 
is  unconscious  of  the  presence  of  other  person¬ 
alities,  or  oblivious  of  their  need  of  the  same  kind 
of  first-hand  experience  of  God  which  he  claims 
for  himself.  He  is  often  keenly  aware  of  this 
need,  and  may  feel  it  his  duty  to  do  what  he  can 
to  satisfy  it.  But  what  he  does  will  be  something 
apart  from  his  own  personal  experience  of  God. 
It  will  be  an  addendum  to  that  experience,  or  a 
consequence  of  it.  It  will  contribute  nothing 
new  and  essential.  The  individualist  may  even 
become  a  missionary,  and  spend  his  life  rehearsing 
the  story  of  what  God  has  done  for  him.  But  it 
will  be  as  one  who  imparts  a  complete  and  finished 
gift,  not  as  one  who  seeks  some  new  and  added 
light  for  himself.  To  be  conscious  that  God  cares 
7 


98 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


for  others,  and  to  desire  to  help  them  to  that 
knowledge,  is  to  take  the  first  step  on  the  road  to 
democratic  religion.  But  of  itself  it  does  not 
make  a  man  a  democrat.  Democratic  religion 
in  the  full  sense  of  that  term  begins  when  it 
first  dawns  on  a  man  that  God  may  have  some¬ 
thing  to  say  to  him  through  the  different  thing 
He  is  saying  to  his  neighbour. 

Within  this  broad  field  of  individualistic 
religion,  two  further  types  may  be  distinguished. 
In  the  first  a  man  concentrates  upon  the  relation 
between  his  own  soul  and  God,  because  all  other 
satisfactions  in  life  have  failed  him.  In  the 
second  he  finds  God  so  satisfying  for  His  own  sake 
that  he  has  no  zest  left  for  other  pleasures.  We 
may  call  these  respectively  negative  and  positive 
individualism. 

2.  Individualism  as  the  Religion  of  Protest. 

Different  Forms  which  this  Protest  may  take 

In  Charles  Reade’s  well-known  novel,  The 
Cloister  and  the  Hearth ,  he  presents  us  with  an 
imperishable  picture  of  individualistic  religion. 
It  is  the  life-story  of  Gerard  and  Margaret,  the 
father  and  mother  of  the  great  scholar  Erasmus. 
Though  the  form  in  which  the  author  has  clothed 
the  story  is  that  of  fiction,  the  type  of  religious 
experience  which  he  portrays  can  be  verified  in 
documents  whose  authenticity  no  scholar  would 
dispute. 

Gerard  was  a  young  Dutch  artist,  who  had 


PROTEST  AGAINST  IMPERIALISM 


99 


been  designed  by  his  parents  for  the  Church. 
But  though  he  began  his  training  for  the  priest¬ 
hood  he  did  not  finish  it.  A  love  affair  with  the 
daughter  of  a  neighbour  revealed  to  him  that 
his  vocation  was  not  for  the  Church,  and  he 
determined  to  earn  his  living  as  an  artist,  so 
as  to  be  able  to  marry.  This  did  not  suit  the 
plans  of  his  parents,  who  had  small  faith  in  the 
artistic  abilities  of  their  son,  and  had  no  mind  to 
be  saddled  with  the  support  of  another  daughter. 
To  escape  their  opposition  Gerard  marries  secretly, 
and  leaving  his  bride  on  their  wedding  night,  sets 
out  for  Italy,  where  he  achieves  great  success, 
and  soon  finds  himself  in  ample  funds.  On  the 
eve  of  his  return  he  receives  a  letter  from  his 
brothers  telling  him  that  Margaret  is  dead,  and 
in  the  revulsion  of  feeling  he  throws  prudence 
to  the  winds,  and  plunges  into  every  form  of 
dissipation.  In  this  irresponsible  state  he  is 
found  by  a  friar  who  recalls  him  to  himself  and 
convicts  him  of  his  sin.  A  second  change  of 
feeling  follows,  as  abrupt  as  the  first.  He  now 
interprets  the  death  of  his  wife  as  God's  punish¬ 
ment  for  his  sin  in  failing  to  enter  the  Church. 
To  atone  for  this  apostasy,  he  re-enters  the 
cloister,  and  gives  himself  with  all  the  fervour  of 
his  artistic  nature  to  the  ascetic  life.  The  story 
culminates  on  his  return  to  Holland,  when  he 
learns  of  the  deceit  practised  upon  him  by  his 
brothers,  sees  and  recognizes  his  wife,  and  in 
despair  at  this  new  tragedy,  flees  from  the  haunts 
of  men,  and  establishes  himself  as  a  hermit  in 


100 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


a  lonely  cave,  from  which  he  never  ventures 
out  but  at  night. 

Yet  even  here  he  is  not  at  peace.  By  day 
he  can  occupy  his  thoughts*  in  meditation  and 
prayer — but  at  night  this  resource  fails  him.  He 
sees  his  wife,  “  her  face  irradiated  with  sunshine, 
and  her  eyes  gazing  upon  him  with  a  look  of 
ineffable  tenderness/ '  Awaking  with  a  start, 
he  interprets  his  vision  as  a  temptation  of  the 
Evil  One.  He  renews  his  austerities,  “  shortens 
his  sleep,  lengthens  his  prayers,  and  substitutes 
abstinence  for  temperance/ '  When  this  does 
not  avail,  he  tries  “  the  most  famous  of  all  anti¬ 
dotes — the  grand  febrifuge  of  the  anchorites — 
cold  water.”  He  finds  the  deepest  part  of  the 
stream  that  runs  by  his  cell,  clears  its  bottom 
of  the  large  stones,  makes  a  hole  where  he  can 
stand  in  water  up  to  his  chin,  and  at  the  next 
approach  of  the  vision,  springs  from  his  bed, 
and  enters  the  icy  water.  The  cold  freezes  his 
marrow.  “  I  shall  die,”  he  cries,  “  I  shall  die, 
but  better  this  than  fire  eternal.” 

At  last  the  wife  from  whom  he  has  fled  finds 
him  out,  and  he  can  no  longer  conceal  from  himself 
that  it  is  really  she  who  is  standing  before  him 
in  the  flesh.  She  pleads  with  him  to  leave  his 
cell,  not  indeed  to  return  to  the  old  relationship — 
that  his  vows  have  made  for  ever  impossible — 
but  to  become  the  vicar  of  a  neighbouring  parish 
and  to  use  his  great  gifts  in  bringing  consolation 
to  others.  But  this  appeal  he  resists  as  a  tempta¬ 
tion  of  the  devil.  “  Unhappy  girl,”  he  replies 


PROTEST  AGAINST  IMPERIALISM  101 


to  'the  pleading  woman,  “  would  you  have  me 
risk  my  soul  and  yours  for  a  miserable  vicarage  ?  ” 
Again  he  breaks  away,  and  when  she  seeks  to 
restrain  him,  throws  her  violently  on  the  ground. 
When  he  sees  what  he  has  done  an  impulse  of 
compassion  comes  upon  him.  He  stops,  turns 
toward  her  a  step — then  suddenly  flings  himself 
instead  into  the  icy  water.  "  Kill  my  body,” 
he  cries,  "  but  save  my  soul.” 

Here  we  have  an  extreme  case  of  individual¬ 
istic  religion,  a  case  in  which  the  salvation  of  a 
man's  own  soul  is  contrasted  not  only  with  happi¬ 
ness,  but  even  with  usefulness,  and  the  most 
intimate  and  sacred  human  relationships  are 
shunned  as  temptations  of  the  devil. 

In  this  case  the  impulse  to  heroic  self- 
abnegation  came  from  the  failure  of  the  subject's 
previous  plan  of  life.  He  turns  from  the  world 
to  God,  because  the  world  cannot  give  him  his 
heart's  desire.  But  individualistic  religion  may 
spring  from  a  nobler  motive.  It  may  have  its 
roots  in  love  for  others  as  well  as  in  love  of  self. 
A  man  may  turn  his  back  upon  the  world  in  a 
spirit  of  disillusionment,  because  it  does  not 
answer  his  dream  of  a  brotherhood  of  love. 
Many  a  man  to-day  has  been  going  through 
such  a  disheartening  experience.  In  his  boyhood 
he  responded  to  the  preaching  of  the  social 
Gospel.  Like  the  credulous  spirits  of  our  Lord's 
day,  he  let  himself  believe  that  “  the  Kingdom  of 
God  was  immediately  to  appear.”  1  He  threw 

1  Luke  xix.  1 1. 


102 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


himself  into  the  crusade  for  better  homes,  better 
schools,  fairer  methods  in  industry,  a  more 
peaceable  adjustment  of  international  disputes. 
He  called  himself  socialist,  single-taxer,  inter¬ 
nationalist.  But  steadily  the  hard  facts  of  life 
have  forced  their  way  into  his  paradise,  and  he 
has  seen  his  Utopia  dissolve  into  thin  air.  The 
conception  of  God  as  a  Loving  Father  who  cares 
for  all  men  and  wishes  to  do  them  good  no  longer 
seems  credible.  If  he  is  to  believe  in  God  at  all, 
it  must  be  in  some  more  intimate  and  irrefutable 
way.  So  he  turns  his  back  on  the  prophets  of 
the  new  social  order.  If  God  will  save  his  own 
soul  he  will  be  content. 

Or  it  may  be  the  Church  from  which  the  in¬ 
dividualist  turns  in  despair.  We  have  already 
seen  that  the  imperialist  recognizes  the  right  of 
the  individual  to  freedom  up  to  a  certain  point, 
and  is  prepared  to  go  a  considerable  distance  to 
gratify  it.  But,  however  much  he  may  concede, 
there  comes  a  point  beyond  which  he  cannot  go. 
When  that  point  is  reached  there  is  nothing  for 
the  free  spirit  to  do  but  to  assert  its  independence, 
cost  what  it  may.  Of  the  two  voices,  each  claim¬ 
ing  to  be  God’s,  the  individualist  is  never  in 
doubt  which  to  heed.  When  the  disciples  were 
ordered  by  the  chief  priests  to  cease  their  preach¬ 
ing,  Peter’s  answer  was  instant :  “  Whether  it  be 
right  in  the  sight  of  God  to  hearken  unto  you 
rather  than  unto  God,  judge  ye.  But  we  cannot 
but  speak  the  things  we  saw  and  heard.”  1  And 

1  Acts  iv.  19,  20. 


PROTEST  AGAINST  IMPERIALISM  103 


Luther,  facing  the  combined  authority  of  Church 
and  State  at  Worms,  is  conscious  of  no  alter¬ 
native.  “  Here  stand  I,  God  helping  me,  I  can 
do  no  other.” 

The  break  may  come  in  various  ways.  It 
may  come  through  the  mind.  A  man  may  be 
asked  to  believe  something  which  he  knows  is 
not  true.  It  may  come  through  the  conscience. 
He  may  be  required  to  do  something  which  his 
moral  nature  disapproves.  Or  the  issue  may  be 
joined  over  some  question  of  taste,  or  of  feeling. 
Many  a  sensitive  nature  in  our  day  has  broken 
with  the  Church  on  this  ground  and  become  an 
individualist  in  his  religion.  The  ritual  of  the 
Church  does  not  satisfy  his  instinct  of  worship. 
He  finds  the  services  cold  and  formal.  They  do 
not  help  him  to  realize  the  presence  of  God. 
Much  that  is  said  and  done  is  offensive  to  him  : 
some  things  seem  sacrilegious.  It  matters  not  how 
the  break  comes.  When  the  old  tie  is  broken, 
the  individual  finds  himself  alone.  And  the  new 
situation  brings  him  face  to  face  with  God. 

The  type  of  religion  thus  briefly  described 
may  be  called  negative  individualism.  The 
driving  power  is  the  desire  to  find  refuge  from 
some  overmastering  evil — either  without  or  more 
often  within.  The  individualist  of  this  type 
must  escape  from  his  existing  environment ; 
more  difficult  still,  he  must  escape  from  his 
present  self.  He  must  be  born  again. 

William  James  has  described  this  type  of 
religion  in  masterly  fashion  in  his  V arieties  of 


104 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


the  Religious  Experience.  In  these  lectures,  as 
we  have  seen,  he  distinguishes  between  two 
contrasted  types  of  religion.  One  of  these  he 
calls  the  religion  of  healthy-mindedness,  the 
other  the  religion  of  the  sick  soul.  The  healthy- 
minded  Christian  is  one  to  whom  religion  seems 
natural  and  normal,  one  who  grows  up  into 
religion,  as  he  grows  up  into  citizenship  or  friend¬ 
ship — the  type  of  Christian  described  by  Horace 
Bushnell  in  his  well-known  book  on  Christian 
Nurture.1  The  sick  soul,  on  the  other  hand,  is 
one  to  whom  religion  means  deliverance.  It  is 
the  way  of  escape  from  some  dreaded  evil,  of 
salvation  from  some  besetting  sin.  Religion  is 
here  thought  of  as  a  device  for  introducing 
harmony  into  a  divided  nature.  It  was  William 
James  who  suggested  to  Harold  Begbie  the  title 
of  his  widely-read  book,  Twice-born  Men — the 
book  in  which  he  tells  the  story  of  Old  Born- 
drunk  and  other  examples  of  the  triumphs  of  the 
Salvation  Army  revival-room. 

This  religion  of  salvation  may  assume  many 
forms.  The  evils  from  which  man  needs  deliver¬ 
ance  are  manifold,  and  the  ways  in  which  rescue 
comes  beyond  our  power  to  catalogue.  Sick¬ 
ness,  sorrow,  sin  in  all  its  countless  and  revolting 
forms  ;  even  life  itself  has  been  felt  as  an  evil 
from  which  man  turns  to  religion  for  escape. 
There  is  no  single  outstanding  example  of  in¬ 
dividualistic  religion  which  we  can  take  as  our 
illustration  in  the  same  way  in  which  we  used 

1  First  published  in  1847. 


PROTEST  AGAINST  IMPERIALISM 


105 


the  Church  of  Rome  to  illustrate  imperialism. 
Much  of  the  material  which  claims  our  attention 
is  unfamiliar.  Much  lies  altogether  outside  the 
field  of  the  organized  Churches.  Some  of  it 
could  scarcely  claim  the  name  “  religion  ”  at  all. 
If  we  admit  it  to  our  category  of  religion,  it  can 
only  be  as  a  sport  or  freak,  one  of  the  members 
of  that  strange  collection  which  excited  William 
James's  pathological  interest,  and  led  to  the 
description  of  his  book  by  a  witty  reviewer,  as 
“  Wild  Religions  I  have  known."  1 

But  whatever  the  form  taken  by  individual¬ 
istic  religion,  it  always  involves  a  first-hand 
dealing  of  the  soul  with  God.  Its  representatives 
differ  widely  in  their  conception  of  God  and  in 
their  way  of  approach  to  Him.  But  they  are  all 
agreed  that  each  man  must  approach  God  for 
himself,  and  judge  for  himself  what  God  says  to 
him.  The  evangelical  hears  God  speaking  in  the 
Bible,  the  mystic  in  the  silence  of  his  own  soul. 
But  each  insists  upon  the  necessity  of  the 
Testimonium  Spiritus  Sancti,  and  each  finds  in 

1  The  United  States  has  been  a  fertile  soil  for  the  growing 
of  these  strange  forms  of  individualistic  religion,  and  we  are 
only  now  beginning  to  give  them  the  attention  they  deserve. 
Christian  Science  is  one  of  the  best  known  of  them,  with  its 
variants,  faith  healing  and  new  thought — now  grown  so  powerful 
and  so  conventional  that  we  are  tempted  to  forget  their  early 
vagaries.  But  there  are  many  others  less  known  and  less 
respectable.  Miss  Mary  Austin,  in  a  penetrating  essay  on 
“Religion  in  America  ”  (Century  Magazine ,  August  1922),  calls 
attention  to  the  creative  activity  which  is  expressing  itself 
through  these  neglected  and  often  grotesque  forms.  But  into 
the  wide  field  she  opens  we  cannot  follow  her  here. 


106 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


the  peace  and  inner  satisfaction  which  that 
witness  brings,  the  final  proof  that  it  is  God  who 
has  spoken.  Beyond  this  consciousness  of  God's 
presence  in  his  own  soul,  the  consistent  indi¬ 
vidualist  does  not  feel  it  necessary  to  go. 


3.  Evangelical  Protestantism  as  a  form  of  Negative 
Individualism.  Parallels  in  the  Roman 
Church.  Buddhism  as  the  Extreme  Form  of 
Negative  Individualism 

The  most  familiar  example  of  the  negative 
type  of  individualism,  and  the  most  convenient 
for  our  present  purpose,  is  the  form  which  meets 
us  in  evangelical  Protestantism.  The  great  boon 
desired  is  forgiveness,  and  the  great  evil  to  be 
shunned  is  sin.  God  is  thought  of  primarily  as 
a  Judge  whose  function  it  is  to  sit  as  guardian 
of  the  law.  Before  His  august  majesty  each  soul 
must  appear  to  answer  for  his  deeds  whether 
they  be  good  or  evil.  In  this  supreme  test  no 
one  of  us  can  assist  his  brother.  Each  must 
stand  naked  and  alone  in  the  sight  of  his  God. 
And  since  all  have  sinned  and  come  short  of  the 
glory  of  God,  all  alike  deserve  and  will  receive 
eternal  punishment.  This  punishment  includes 
suffering  of  the  most  dreadful  kind  for  mind  and 
body,  but  the  suffering  is  not  the  worst  punish¬ 
ment.  More  dreadful  still  is  the  loss  of  the 
supreme  good  for  which  the  individual  was 
designed,  the  consciousness  of  being  cast  out 
from  “  the  comfortable  presence  of  God." 


PROTEST  AGAINST  IMPERIALISM  107 


In  this  situation  Jesus  Christ,  God's  divine 
Son,  intervenes  with  His  miraculous  deliverance. 
He  Himself,  innocent  though  He  be,  takes  upon 
Him  the  penalty  of  our  sin,  and  by  a  similar 
miracle  transfers  to  us  the  merit  of  His  righteous¬ 
ness.  The  awe-struck  sinner,  looking  up  into 
the  face  of  the  Judge,  sees  the  frown  of  offended 
justice  pass  away,  and  give  place  to  the  Father’s 
smile  of  forgiveness.  The  fear  which  has  hitherto 
tortured  him  is  replaced  by  a  strange  peace. 
The  weakness  which  has  thus  far  paralysed  him 
is  succeeded  by  a  sense  of  buoyancy  and  power. 
He  repeats  in  his  own  person  the  experience 
described  in  the  New  Testament.  "  Whereas  I 
was  blind,  now  I  see.”  “  I  can  do  all  things  in 
Him  that  strengtheneth  me.”  1 

In  describing  this  familiar  type  of  experience 
as  individualism  I  am  well  aware  that  I  am  not 
doing  justice  to  all  the  elements  in  that  experi¬ 
ence.  Evangelical  Protestantism,  like  the  Roman 
religion  against  which  it  was  a  protest,  is  a  com¬ 
bination  of  many  different  elements.  Some  of 
the  old  imperialism  lives  on  in  Protestantism — 
more  sometimes  than  we  Protestants  like  to 
realize  or  are  willing  to  confess.  Some  elements 
of  the  new  democratic  religion  are  already  present 
— not  yet  fully  self-conscious  or  adequately  ex¬ 
pressed.  But  the  prevailing  emphasis  is  indi¬ 
vidualistic.  If  one  were  to  choose  a  single  word 
to  express  the  genius  of  the  older  evangelical 
Protestantism  it  would  be  individualism. 

1  John  ix.  25  ;  Phil.  iv.  13. 


108 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


In  thus  concentrating  attention  upon  the 
relation  between  the  individual  soul  and  God, 
Protestantism  is  following  an  example  set  by  the 
older  Church.  We  have  spoken  more  than  once 
of  the  provision  made  by  Rome  for  the  assertion 
of  the  responsibility  of  the  individual.  The 
matter  of  personal  salvation  offers  a  notable 
example.  From  one  point  of  view  salvation  may 
be  looked  upon  as  a  gift  of  God  through  the 
Church,  but  from  another  it  is  a  task  to  be 
achieved  by  the  individual  in  co-operation  with 
the  Church.  The  entire  ritual  of  the  Church 
with  its  sacraments  and  its  discipline  may  be 
described  as  a  series  of  steps  through  which  the 
Church  conducts  the  soul  in  its  search  for  salva¬ 
tion.  At  no  stage  is  the  responsibility  of  the 
individual  suffered  to  lapse.  The  Church  pro¬ 
mises  to  do  great  things  for  her  children  ;  but 
whether  she  will  do  any  one  of  them,  or  whether 
what  she  does  will  prove  effective,  depends  in 
the  last  analysis  upon  what  the  individual  does 
for  himself.  Unlike  the  Calvinistic  churches, 
which  throw  the  entire  responsibility  of  salvation 
on  God  and  deny  man  any  ability  to  save  himself, 
Rome  insists  that  each  man  retains  the  power 
of  freewill  unimpaired,  and  requires  him  to  use 
it.  There  is  no  moment  of  time  when  he  can 
say,  u  Now  the  battle  is  over.  My  soul  is  safe.” 
To  the  last  there  must  be  struggle  and  achieve¬ 
ment,  uncertainty  and  strain.  Through  the 
whole  process  the  individual  and  the  Church  are 
set  over  against  each  other,  each  co-operating  in 


PROTEST  AGAINST  IMPERIALISM  109 


a  task  which  has  for  its  goal  the  salvation  of  the 
individual  soul. 

Most  extreme  of  all  the  forms  of  negative 
individualism  is  Buddhism.  Here  the  evil  from 
which  deliverance  is  sought  is  life  itself.  Moved 
with  compassion  at  the  spectacle  of  human 
misery  in  its  countless  forms,  the  gentle  seer  of 
the  East  searches  in  vain  for  a  means  of  deliver¬ 
ance.  But  each  remedy  brings  him  face  to  face 
with  some  new  form  of  the  disease — for  each 
leaves  a  man  still  the  victim  of  unsatisfied  desire. 
Give  him  what  you  will,  he  will  still  ask  for  more. 
Take  from  him  what  you  can,  some  longing  will 
still  remain  unsubdued.  There  is  but  one  way 
to  complete  and  final  salvation.  Life  itself,  the 
mother  of  desire,  must  be  destroyed.  For  desire 
is  the  source  of  all  our  evils — insatiable  desire, 
consumer  of  that  on  which  it  feeds. 

It  may  indeed  seem  a  paradox  to  cite  as  an 
example  of  individualism  a  religion  which  has  for 
its  main  object  the  destruction  of  the  individual. 
But  a  good  case  can  be  made  for  doing  so.  This 
cry  for  deliverance  is  itself  an  affirmation  of 
the  value  of  the  human  personality.  The  soul 
refuses  to  be  satisfied  with  the  common  lot.  It 
demands  for  itself  some  more  enduring  comfort 
— some  peace  not  of  this  world,  which  earth  can 
neither  give  nor  take  away.  For  such  enduring 
satisfaction,  it  is  willing  to  pay  any  price— even 
personality  itself. 

Scholars  are  not  agreed  as  to  the  exact 
meaning  of  Nirvana — the  goal  which  Buddhism 


110 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


promises  its  devotees  as  their  final  heaven. 
Does  it  mean  literal  annihilation  ?  Or  is  it 
merely  the  Eastern  way  of  describing  in  negative 
language  the  indescribable  bliss  of  life  with  God 
described  by  Christian  saints  in  language  as 
negative.  It  is  not  necessary  for  our  purpose 
to  decide.  Enough  to  know  that  in  either  case 
religion  involves  complete  renunciation  of  the 
world,  a  first-hand  dealing  of  the  individual  soul 
with  the  supreme  reality. 

4.  Examples  of  Positive  Individualism.  Mystical 
Religion  as  a  Form  of  Positive  Individualism 

But  individualistic  religion  has  its  positive 
as  well  as  its  negative  aspects.  One  may  forget 
the  world,  not  because  the  world  is  sad,  but 
because  one  has  found  a  pleasure  still  more 
satisfying. 

This  positive  individualism  has  assumed  many 
different  forms.  Sometimes  it  shows  itself  in 
the  mere  impulse  to  self-expression — the  joie  de 
vivre  which  is  the  characteristic  of  virile  and 
creative  spirits.  There  are  men  who  would 
rather  fight  their  way  to  victory  than  accept 
an  easy  salvation.  One  hears  this  heroic, 
struggling,  individualistic  note  in  much  of  our 
modern  poetry  ;  in  Henley,  for  example,  and 
some  of  his  less  distinguished  imitators.  But 
often  individualistic  religion  strikes  a  less  lofty 
note.  It  finds  its  satisfaction,  not  so  much  in  the 
struggle,  as  in  the  rewards  of  victory.  To  be 


PROTEST  AGAINST  IMPERIALISM  111 


the  chosen  of  the  gods  when  so  many  are  passed 
by,  ministers  to  the  sense  of  pride.  Centuries 
ago  the  writer  of  2  Esdras  gave  striking  expression 
to  this  feeling.  When  the  seer,  burdened  with 
the  sins  of  the  world,  pleads  the  mercy  of  God  as 
the  sole  ground  of  forgiveness,  since  “  if  God  did 
not  pardon  them  that  were  created  by  His  word 
and  blot  out  the  multitude  of  offences,  there 
would  peradventure  be  very  few  left  out  of  an 
innumerable  multitude/ ’  the  angel  replies,  “  The 
Most  High  hath  made  this  world  for  many,  but 
the  world  to  come  for  few.  ...  Be  therefore 
no  longer  curious  how  the  ungodly  shall  be 
punished,  but  inquire  how  the  righteous  shall  be 
saved — they  whose  the  world  is  and  for  whom  it 
was  created/’  1 

Of  all  the  forms  of  positive  individualism 
the  most  interesting  for  our  present  purpose  is 
mysticism.  It  is  not  possible  here  to  enter  upon 
any  lengthy  discussion  of  this  much  debated 
subject.  Mysticism  exercises  a  perennial  fascina¬ 
tion  for  scholars,  and  forms  a  debating  ground 
where  the  most  contradictory  opinions  are  main¬ 
tained  with  equal  assurance  and  enthusiasm. 
William  James  regarded  the  mystical  experience 
as  the  heart  of  all  vital  religion.  Other  students 
of  religion  are  equally  certain  that  it  is  the  mortal 
foe  of  ethical  religion.  All  that  we  can  hope  to 
do  is  to  point  out  some  simple  distinctions  which 
may  help  to  throw  light  upon  such  phases  of  the 
mystical  experience  as  at  present  interest  us. 

1  vii.  62-70  ;  viii.  i  ;  ix.  13. 


112 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


At  the  outset  we  must  distinguish  between 
mysticism,  considered  as  a  distinct  type  of  the 
religious  experience,  and  the  element  of  imme¬ 
diacy  which  enters  into  all  vital  religion.  In  all 
true  religion,  of  whatever  kind,  whether  it  be 
imperialistic,  individualistic,  or  democratic,  the 
soul  is  conscious  of  an  inner  satisfaction  which 
religion  interprets  as  the  presence  of  God.  This 
immediate  sense  of  God’s  presence  is  often  de¬ 
scribed  as  the  mystical  element  in  religion.  But 
this  use  of  the  term  “  mystical  ”  is  misleading. 
It  would  be  wiser  to  use  some  other  word  such  as 
“  vital  ”  or  “  first  hand,”  and  to  restrict  the 
term  "mystical”  to  those  exceptional  cases  in 
which  the  consciousness  of  God’s  presence  reaches 
so  high  a  degree  of  vividness  that  all  other  objects 
drop  out  of  the  field  of  contemplation.  These 
moments  are  often  accompanied  by  a  high  degree 
of  satisfaction,  rising  in  that  of  the  great  saints 
to  ecstasy.  But  it  is  not  the  ecstasy  itself  which 
is  the  mark  of  the  mystic  experience,  but  the  felt 
presence  of  God. 

Within  this  narrower  sphere  of  the  mystical 
experience  two  further  types  can  be  distinguished. 
In  one  case  the  sense  of  God’s  presence  comes 
through  the  contemplation  of  his  works,  as  in  the 
glory  of  the  sunset  or  the  sublimity  of  the  moun¬ 
tain  ;  in  the  other  case  through  a  process  of 
pure  abstraction,  in  which  not  only  the  human 
individual,  but  even  nature  itself  is  dissolved 
into  nothingness.  In  this  most  inner  and  secret 
shrine,  thought  itself  fails.  Only  feeling  remains, 


PROTEST  AGAINST  IMPERIALISM  118 


and  this  feeling  must  of  necessity  remain 
voiceless.  William  James  had  this  aspect  of  the 
mystical  experience  in  mind  when  he  specified 
ineff ability  as  one  of  its  four  characteristics.1 2 
When  St.  Catharine  of  Genoa  was  asked  by  her 
children  to  describe  her  experience,  she  could 
not  do  it.  “  O  would  I  could  tell  what  my  heart 
feels.  And  her  children  would  say,  O  Mother, 
tell  us  something  of  it.  And  she  would  answer, 
I  cannot  find  words  appropriate  to  so  great  a 
love.  But  this  I  can  say  with  truth,  that  if  of 
what  my  heart  feels  but  one  drop  were  to  fall 
into  hell,  hell  itself  would  altogether  turn  into 
eternal  life/>  2 

One  may  question  whether  the  term  indi¬ 
vidualism  can  rightly  be  used  to  describe  this 
abstract  and  sublimated  form  of  religion.  The 
mark  of  the  mystical  experience,  as  described  by 
many  of  the  great  mystics,  is  that  all  thought  of 
the  individual  is  forgotten  and  the  soul  loses 
itself  completely  in  the  contemplation  of  God. 
In  many  points  the  manuals  of  mystical  religion 
differ,  but  they  all  agree  that  the  surest  path  to 
the  presence  of  God  is  through  the  suppression 
of  desire.  “  Gelassenheit  ”  “  passivity/'  “  letting 
oneself  go,"  are  terms  which  recur  again  and 
again.  Another  recurring  term  is  inwardness. 
There  are  barriers  to  be  passed  behind  which  the 
Deity  is  hidden,  and  the  self  is  one  of  the  most 

1  Varieties  of  the  Religious  Experience ,  p.  380. 

2  Quoted  in  von  Hiigel,  The  Mystical  Element  in  Religion, 
as  studied  in  St.  Catharine  of  Genoa,  i.  p.  1 19. 

8 


114 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


formidable.  Not  only  must  the  flesh  be  subdued, 
but  the  imagination  and  the  desires  must  be 
brought  into  captivity.  Thought  itself  must 
cease,  the  personality  become  an  empty  vessel.1 
“  O  to  be  nothing,  nothing,  simply  to  lie  at 
His  feet,”  is  a  truthful  description  of  one  aspect 
of  the  mystical  experience. 

Yet,  in  spite  of  this  apparent  inconsistency, 
the  use  of  the  term  individualism  can  be  defended. 
The  characteristic  feature  of  individualistic  re¬ 
ligion,  as  we  have  defined  it,  is  the  exclusion  of 
other  individuals  from  one's  most  intimate 
religious  experiences.  Up  to  the  forecourt  one 
may  make  one's  pilgrimage  in  company,  but 
the  Holy  of  Holies  each  must  enter  alone.  St. 
Theresa  has  much  to  tell  us  here  that  is  illuminat¬ 
ing.  She  realizes  that  God's  choicest  gifts  are 
too  rare  to  be  enjoyed  all  the  time.  Sometimes, 
she  reminds  her  disciples,  it  is  God's  will  that 
we  should  leave  our  privacy  for  a  while  and 
resume  our  homely  duties  of  ministry.  Let  us 
accept  the  sacrifice  with  a  cheerful  heart.  When 
the  discipline  is  complete,  He  will  recall  us  to 
Himself.  But  in  the  meantime  the  sacrifice 
remains  a  sacrifice.  Of  the  two  states,  the 
social  and  the  solitary,  St.  Theresa  has  no  doubt 
which  is  the  higher.2 

1  Cf.  St.  John  of  the  Cross:  The  Ascent  of  Mount  Carmel, 
Eng.  trans.,  1906. 

2  Cf.  The  Life  of  St.  Theresa,  Eng.  trans.  by  Dalton,  London, 
1851,  p.  335.  “For  though  I  was  desirous  to  separate  myself 
from  every  one,  and  to  follow  my  profession  and  vocation  with 
the  greatest  perfection  and  enclosure,  yet  I  desired  this  in 


PROTEST  AGAINST  IMPERIALISM  115 


Experiences  of  this  kind  are  found  in  all 
religions.  In  Christianity  they  are  common  to 
Protestantism  and  to  Catholicism.  But  it  is  in 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  that  the  mystical 
experience  has  been  most  fully  and  most  success¬ 
fully  cultivated.  Herrmann,  in  his  well-known 
book,  The  Communion  of  the  Christian  with  God,1 
argues  that  mysticism  is  the  typically  Catholic 
form  of  piety,  in  contrast  to  Protestantism, 
where  the  conscious  relation  to  Jesus  as  an 
individual  remains  even  during  the  experience 
of  communion  with  God.  Certainly  the  mystical 
experience  is  the  last  and  highest  gift  which  Rome 
has  to  offer  to  the  individual  in  search  of  vital 
religion.  It  is  Rome's  proudest  boast  that  she 
produces  saints.  The  saint  has  a  more  intimate 
experience  of  God  than  others,  and  need  not  be 
bound  by  the  rules  prescribed  for  the  guidance 
of  less  favoured  mortals.  He  may  be  trusted  to 


such  a  way  that  whenever  I  understood  it  would  tend  more 
to  God’s  honour  to  abandon  all  this,  I  would  have  done  it  with 
tranquillity  and  cheerfulness,  as  I  did  before.”  Cf.  p.  339:  “I 
went  home  thinking  they  would  put  me  in  prison.  This,  I 
thought,  would  be  a  great  comfort  to  me,  for  then  I  should 
not  speak  to  any  one,  and  would  be  able  to  repose  a  little  while 
in  solitude  ;  and  this  was  necessary  to  me,  for  by  conversing 
so  often  with  people,  I  became,  as  it  were,  ground  to  the  dust.” 
Speaking  of  the  sisters  of  the  new  and  stricter  convent  which 
she  had  founded  at  Avila,  she  says  (p.  346):  “  Their  whole  study 
is  to  know  how  to  advance  further  in  the  service  of  God. 
Solitude  is  their  delight,  and  the  very  thought  of  any  one,  even 
if  it  should  be  one  of  their  nearest  relatives,  is  a  great  affliction 
to  them,  unless  they  hope  to  be  able  to  excite  such  persons  to 
renewed  love  for  their  spouse. 

1  Eng.  trans.,  London,  1895. 


116  IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 

do  nothing  which  will  impugn  the  authority  of 
the  Church,  or  diminish  her  prestige ;  but  with 
this  proviso,  he  is  left  free  to  follow  God's  leading 
wherever  he  will.  The  great  mystics,  whom  we 
have  characterized  as  typical  individualists,  were 
many  of  them  nurtured  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  and  remained  to  their  death 
her  loyal  children.  Yet  the  centre  of  their  interest 
was  not  in  the  Church,  but  in  the  piety  her 
shelter  and  protection  made  possible.  In  the 
Church,  they  were  not  of  the  Church,  though  the 
Church  claimed  them  for  her  own,  and  gloried 
in  their  achievements.  That  Rome  has  been 
able  to  make  place  within  her  fold  for  such 
thoroughgoing  individualists  is  the  supreme 
example  of  her  skill  as  a  ruler  of  men's  spirits. 

5.  The  Puritan  Combination  of  Positive  and 
Negative  Individualism 

Such,  then,  are  the  two  main  types  of  in¬ 
dividualistic  religion — the  negative  type  which 
finds  expression  in  evangelicalism,  and  the  positive 
which  is  illustrated  in  mysticism.  Sometimes 
the  two  combine  in  interesting  ways,  as  in  that 
great  seer,  Jonathan  Edwards,  who  made  the 
legalistic  Calvinism  of  his  day  the  vehicle  of  a 
mystical  piety.  Edwards,  in  this  a  true  mystic, 
found  the  heart  of  religion  in  the  vision  of  God. 
But  Edwards  saw  the  God  of  Calvinism,  with  his 
dual  decree  and  his  divided  universe.  Calvin 
looked  on  the  dark  side  of  the  picture,  and  turned 


PROTEST  AGAINST  IMPERIALISM  117 


his  face  away.  For  what  he  saw,  he  could  find 
no  reason  but  the  inscrutable  will  of  God.  But 
Edwards  gazes  into  hell  and  sees  its  fires  trans¬ 
figured  with  a  strange  and  awful  beauty.  Hell  is 
the  way  in  which  God’s  justice  is  manifested,  and 
if  for  this  countless  individuals  must  perish,  that 
is  the  price  that  must  be  paid  for  the  raptures  of 
the  rest.  Only  as  an  expression  of  this  mystic 
ecstasy — the  joy  in  the  terrible  which  closes  the 
mouth  of  Job  when  God  appears  in  the  storm, 
can  we  understand  Edwards’  words  in  that  sermon 
which  remains  the  most  startling  tour  de  force 
of  individualistic  religion :  “  The  end  of  the 
world  contemplated  by  the  righteous  ;  or  the 
torments  of  the  wicked  in  hell,  no  occasion  of 
grief  to  the  saints  in  heaven.”  1 

“  You  that  have  godly  parents,  who  in  this 
world  have  tenderly  loved  you,  who  were  wont 
to  look  upon  your  welfare  as  their  own,  and  were 
wont  to  be  grieved  for  you  when  anything  cala¬ 
mitous  befell  you  in  this  world,  and  especially 
were  greatly  concerned  for  the  good  of  your 
souls,  industriously  sought  and  earnestly  prayed 
for  your  salvation,  how  will  you  bear  to  see  them 
.  .  .  now  without  any  love  to  you,  approving 
the  sentence  of  condemnation,  when  Christ  shall 
with  indignation  bid  you  depart,  wretched, 
cursed  creatures  into  eternal  burning  ?  How 
will  you  bear  to  see  and  hear  them  praising  the 
Judge  for  His  justice  exercised  in  pronouncing 
this  sentence,  and  hearing  it  with  holy  joy  in  their 

1  Sermon  XIII.  {Works,  New  York,  1869,  vol.  iv.  pp.  296, 
297). 


118 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


countenances,  and  shouting  forth  the  praises 
and  hallelujahs  of  God  and  Christ  on  that 
account  ?  You  that  have  godly  husbands  or 
wives  or  brethren  or  sisters  with  whom  you  have 
been  wont  to  dwell  under  the  same  roof,  and  to 
eat  at  the  same  table,  consider  how  it  will  be  with 
you  when  you  shall  come  to  part  with  them, 
when  they  shall  be  taken  and  you  left.  .  .  . 
However  you  may  wail  and  lament  when  you  see 
them  parted  from  you  .  .  .  you  will  see  in  them 
no  signs  of  sorrow  that  you  are  not  taken  with 
them.” 

This  seems  the  last  word  in  unquestioning 
submission.  Yet  some  of  our  Puritan  Fathers 
achieved  something  even  more  incredible.  They 
were  willing,  if  need  be,  themselves  to  be  damned 
for  the  glory  of  God.1 

6.  The  Monastery  and  the  Sect  as  Social  Expres¬ 
sions  of  Individualistic  Religion 

Thus  far  we  have  been  describing  individual¬ 
istic  religion  considered  as  a  personal  experience, 
a  protest  against  other  forms  of  social  religion  or  a 
substitute  for  them.  But  even  in  the  most 
extreme  form  of  individualistic  religion  complete 
isolation  proves  impossible.  The  hermit  may 
flee  to  the  desert,  but  his  solitude  will  not  long 
remain  unbroken.  Sooner  or  later  others  will 

1 A  similar  combination  of  negative  and  positive  indi¬ 
vidualism  meets  us  in  the  Buddhist  conception  of  Nirvana  as 
the  supreme  goal  of  humanity. 


PROTEST  AGAINST  IMPERIALISM  119 


follow  him.  In  religion  as  in  every  other  realm 
of  life  some  form  of  association  proves  inevitable. 
Even  Gerard  could  not  maintain  himself  alone. 
The  cell  he  occupied,  another  hermit  had  digged, 
and  the  food  he  ate  was  brought  to  him  by  his 
neighbours.  It  is  not  a  question  of  like  or  dis¬ 
like,  but  of  sheer  necessity.  If  it  be  only  for 
self-preservation  there  must  be  some  kind  of 
association.  The  question  is  not  whether  the 
individualist  will  have  social  institutions,  but 
what  kind  of  institutions  they  will  be. 

Two  possibilities  are  open  to  him.  He  may 
be  content  with  the  minimum  of  organization, 
just  enough  to  keep  life  going  and  to  ensure  the 
platform  on  which  his  own  feet  can  safely  stand. 
Or  he  may  be  convinced  that  his  own  type  of 
experience  is  one  which  God  means  that  he 
should  share  with  others,  and  for  that  reason 
feel  it  his  duty  to  create  an  organization  for  the 
purpose  of  propagating  it.  In  the  first  place 
his  Church  will  be  a  community — monastic  or 
otherwise  ;  in  the  second  case  it  will  be  a  sect. 

The  most  natural  institutional  expression  of 
individualistic  religion  is  the  independent  and 
self-centred  community.  Such  a  community 
may  differ  widely  in  detail.  Its  members  may 
practise  the  celibate  life,  or  they  may  include 
families  of  like-minded  persons — but  whether 
celibate  or  married,  they  will  not  be  interested 
in  propaganda.  They  will  be  content  to  live 
their  own  lives  in  their  own  way,  and  guard  the 
liberty  so  hardly  won.  If  others  come  to  join 


120 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


them,  it  is  their  affair.  The  Brothers  will  not 
repel  newcomers,  but  neither  will  they  encourage 
them.  They  have  another  and  a  higher  aim,  to 
cultivate  their  own  souls  and  to  enjoy  the  peace 
of  God  which  passeth  understanding. 

The  typical  example  is  the  monastery.  Here 
the  devotees  of  the  solitary  life  combine  to 
protect  their  own  privacy.  Each  has  his  cell  to 
which  he  can  retire,1  and  while  they  meet  for 
common  worship  and  for  the  work  necessary  to 
sustain  life,  these  are  incidents  in  the  main 
purpose  which  brings  them  together,  which  is 
solitude.  In  extreme  cases,  as  with  the  Trappists, 
even  speech  is  forbidden. 

It  is  of  course  true  that  other  factors  have 
been  operative  in  the  history  of  monasticism, 
besides  the  desire  to  promote  the  individual 
religious  life.  The  founders  of  the  great  orders 
were  well  aware  that  man  has  many  needs,  and 
that  if  they  were  to  maintain  a  sane  and  healthy 
life  they  must  make  provision  for  work  and 
study  as  well  as  for  prayer.  Monasticism,  as 
developed  by  a  genius  like  Benedict  of  Nursia 
and  his  successors,  proved  a  great  civilizing 
agency.  The  monks  became  farmers,  scholars, 
teachers.  But  the  ideal  remained  individualistic. 
Central  in  the  life  of  each  brother  were  the  hours 
spent  alone  with  God,  and  the  social  contacts 
with  people  outside  the  brotherhood  were  inci- 

1  This  is  true,  to  be  sure,  only  of  the  stricter  orders — those 
which  make  contemplation  the  sole  object  of  the  monk’s  life. 
In  many  monasteries,  common  or  dormitory  life  was  the  rule. 


PROTEST  AGAINST  IMPERIALISM  121 


dents  in  an  experience  which  in  the  last  analysis 
was  independent  of  anything  they  could  give. 
When  prosperity  brought  laxity,  as  it  was  sure 
to  do,  the  first  step  in  reform  was  a  renewed 
insistence  upon  a  life  of  immediate  communion 
with  God,  and  the  recovery  of  the  lost  hours  of 
devotion. 

But  individualistic  religion  may  take  another 
course.  The  insight  that  comes  in  solitude  may 
seem  too  precious  to  be  monopolized.  The 
impulse  to  fellowship  which  is  latent  in  every 
man  may  begin  to  assert  itself.  When  this 
moment  comes  a  new  social  interest  begins  to 
operate.  A  purely  self-centred  and  isolated  life 
seems  no  longer  adequate.  There  must  be  an 
active  and  aggressive  organization.  The  com¬ 
munity  must  add  to  contemplation,  propaganda. 

This  development  may  be  studied  both  in 
Catholicism  and  in  Protestantism.  The  orders 
which  came  into  existence  for  the  purpose  of 
providing  a  way  of  escape  from  the  world,  not 
to  say  from  the  Church,  proved  useful  agencies 
in  subduing  the  world  to  the  Church.  New  orders 
were  founded  whose  primary  purpose  was  to 
spread  the  true  religion.  St.  Francis  and  St. 
Dominic  made  preaching  central  in  their  pro¬ 
gramme.  Ignatius  Loyola  gave  the  hierarchy  its 
most  effective  weapon  for  combating  the  reform¬ 
ing  spirit  of  the  sixteenth  century.  In  the 
Society  of  Jesus  we  see  a  militant  monasticism, 
using  the  methods  of  individualistic  religion  to 
discipline  soldiers  for  the  battles  of  imperialism. 


122 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


Somewhat  similar  was  the  development  of 
individualistic  religion  in  Protestantism.  When 
Luther  broke  with  Rome,  the  last  thing  he 
expected  to  do  was  to  found  a  new  Church.  He 
had  but  one  concern,  which  was  to  save  his  soul. 
But  he  soon  found  that  others  were  to  be  con¬ 
sidered  as  well  as  himself.  He  was  not  the  only 
one  who  had  passed  through  a  revolutionary 
experience.  These  other  seekers  after  God 
turned  to  him  for  help  and  guidance.  Little  by 
little  he  was  forced  into  a  position  of  leadership. 
The  solitary  became  a  reformer  ;  the  reformer, 
the  founder  of  a  Church. 

The  experience  of  Luther  repeated  itself  in 
the  case  of  other  Protestants.  Many  of  the 
great  denominations  began  as  little  societies  for 
the  cultivation  of  personal  religion.  Only  gradu¬ 
ally  did  expanding  numbers  alter  the  perspective, 
and  transform  them  into  Churches.  A  notable 
example  is  Methodism,  one  of  the  most  numerous 
and  most  powerful  of  all  the  Protestant  families, 
which,  as  is  well  known,  began  as  a  little  group  of 
societies  for  the  self-discipline  of  their  members. 

In  the  new  Churches,  to  be  sure,  the  old 
individualistic  ideal  was  still  controlling.  All 
that  was  done  was  designed  to  make  the  individual 
vividly  conscious  of  his  immediate  relationship 
to  God.  This  was  true  of  the  use  made  of  the 
Bible.  Perfect  and  inerrant  as  it  was  in  all  its 
parts,  the  Bible  remained  a  sealed  book,  unless 
its  meaning  was  opened  to  the  reader  by  the 
Spirit.  The  authority  of  Protestantism  is  not 


PROTEST  AGAINST  IMPERIALISM  123 


the  Bible  alone,  but  the  Spirit  of  God  bearing 
witness  to  the  heart  and  conscience  of  the  believer 
that  this  book  is  God's  word  to  him.1 

This  conception  of  religious  authority  has  its 
consequences  for  education.  True  education  must 
fit  a  man  to  see  with  his  own  eyes  and  make 
his  own  ultimate  decisions.  Conversion — the 
deliberate  act  of  the  will  by  which  a  man  re¬ 
nounces  sin  and  embraces  God — plays  a  great 
role  in  individualistic  religion.  But  it  is  only 
the  first  step  in  a  training  which  is  lifelong.  At 
each  stage  in  this  training  individual  responsi¬ 
bility  is  emphasized.  Each  man  must  read  the 
Bible  for  himself,  and  make  his  own  independent 
decisions  on  the  basis  of  what  he  reads.  Each 
must  pray  his  own  prayer,  and  expect  his  own 
answer.  With  each  God  deals  at  first  hand. 
No  one's  experience  can  take  the  place  of  his 
neighbour’s. 

The  public  worship  of  the  Church  is  planned 
to  assist  this  process  of  self-education.  The 
worshipper  is  bidden  to  forget  the  world  and  its 
cares  ;  to  concentrate  his  thought  upon  the  soul 
and  its  destiny.  He  is  introduced  into  the  society 
of  those  who  have  found  salvation  before  him, 
but  only  as  a  step  towards  that  more  intimate 
communion  with  God  in  which  all  other  in¬ 
dividuals  are  forgotten. 

Central  in  the  entire  process  of  education  is 
the  discipline  of  the  will.  There  are  rules  to  be 
followed  ;  renunciations  to  be  made.  These  are 

1  Westminster  Confession,  chapter  i. 


124 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


concerned  with  such  matters  as  Bible  reading 
and  prayer,  Sabbath  observance  and  temperance, 
as  well  as  the  homely  virtues  of  honesty  and 
charity.  They  vary  in  their  details  in  the  different 
Churches,  but  they  agree  in  this,  that  the  discip¬ 
line  is  in  the  last  analysis  self-discipline.  Others 
may  help  in  the  initial  stages,  but  unless  the 
believer  becomes  captain  of  his  own  soul  his 
education  will  have  failed  of  its  purpose. 

The  ideal  of  service  is  conceived  in  similar 
individualistic  fashion.  We  serve  our  neighbour, 
explains  Luther  in  his  discussion  of  Christian 
freedom,  in  order  to  show  our  gratitude  to  God  for 
what  He  has  done  for  us.  And  the  best  thing  that 
we  can  do  for  some  one  else  is  to  bring  him  where 
he  will  see  God  for  himself.  The  ordinary  civic 
virtues  are,  to  be  sure,  important — honesty, 
charity,  justice,  and  the  like.  God  requires 
these  of  His  children,  and  Protestant  Christianity 
has  made  notable  contributions  to  social  ethics,1 
but  for  the  Christian  the  supreme  duty  is  witness. 
There  is  only  one  effective  way  to  bring  others 
to  Christ,  and  that  is  to  tell  them  what  God  has 
done  for  us.  Personal  testimony  is  central  in 
the  propaganda  of  Protestantism,  and  the  re¬ 
vival  room  wins  its  converts  by  the  contagion  of 
personal  experience. 

It  is  when  service  takes  the  form  of  pro¬ 
paganda  that  the  individualist  faces  for  the  first 
time,  in  its  full  force,  the  social  problem  which 
is  central  for  the  imperialist  and  the  democrat. 

1  Cf.  the  monograph  of  Troeltsch,  already  cited. 


PROTEST  AGAINST  IMPERIALISM 


125 


Two  possibilities  are  open  to  him.  He  may  trust 
his  neighbour  so  far  only  as  his  neighbour's  main 
conclusions  agree  with  his  own  ;  or  he  may  be 
consistent  in  his  individualism  and  leave  his 
neighbour  free  to  make  his  own  decision,  even 
though  that  decision  be  one  he  himself  dis¬ 
approves.  To  take  the  first  course  is  to  follow 
a  path  which  will  lead  back  sooner  or  later  to 
imperialism.  To  follow  the  second  is  to  take 
the  first  step  on  the  road  to  democratic  religion. 


7.  The  Sectarian  Compromise  between 
Individualism  and  Imperialism 

We  may  follow  Troeltsch  in  using  the  term 
“  sect  ”  to  describe  the  new  form  of  religious 
institution  which  results  when  the  first  path  is 
taken.  The  religion  of  the  sect  is  individualistic 
religion  which  has  carried  over  into  its  new 
environment  the  imperialistic  spirit.  The  sec¬ 
tarian  is  an  individualist  in  his  own  personal 
religious  experience.  He  hears  God  speaking  to 
him  directly,  and  implicitly  obeys.  But  he 
believes  that  God  must  say  the  same  thing  to 
every  other  man.  He  cannot  tolerate  the  thought 
of  any  variation  in  religion.  As  with  the  im¬ 
perialist  his  goal  is  conformity.  Yet  his  philo¬ 
sophy  will  not  permit  him  to  create  the  institu¬ 
tions  through  which  the  imperialist  achieves 
complete  conformity.  So  he  is  obliged  to  seek 
the  same  goal  by  an  indirect  road.  In  theory 
each  man  is  free  to  approach  God  for  himself, 


126 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


and  to  interpret  what  he  finds  in  his  own  way. 
But  in  practice  any  departure  from  the  accepted 
interpretation  is  regarded  as  dangerous, — all  the 
more  dangerous  because  it  is  presented  in  the 
guise  of  personal  experience.  Indeed  it  may  be 
said  that  heresy  is  even  more  disturbing  to  the 
sectarian  than  to  the  consistent  imperialist,  for 
it  poisons  the  wells  of  which  he  drinks.  In  the 
name  of  freedom  of  conscience  the  Nonconformist 
sets  up  again  the  methods  of  social  control,  to 
escape  from  which  he  himself  broke  with  the 
Church. 

In  choosing  the  term  “  sect  ”  to  designate 
the  second  form  in  which  individualism  finds 
institutional  expression,  we  do  not  use  the  word 
in  any  derogatory  sense,  but  simply  as  a  con¬ 
venient  designation  of  a  clearly  recognizable 
religious  type.  In  imperialistic  religion,  the  in¬ 
stitution  is  the  bond  of  union,  and  within  the 
limits  it  permits,  variety  both  of  opinion  and 
conduct  is  permissible,  even  praiseworthy.  In 
sectarian  religion,  on  the  other  hand,  a  particular 
set  of  tenets  is  identified  with  absolute  truth, 
and  those  only  who  accept  them  are  eligible  to 
membership.  One  may  be  born  into  the  Church. 
One  must  join  a  sect.  In  practice,  therefore, 
sectarian  religion  is  commonly  divisive.  It 
lacks  the  power  of  adaptation  which  is  possessed 
by  the  more  consistent  forms  of  imperialism. 
Troeltsch  has  much  to  say  of  the  provincial 
character  of  sectarianism.1  He  finds  its  genius 

1  Op.  cit.  p.  362. 


PROTEST  AGAINST  IMPERIALISM  127 


best  illustrated  in  the  more  radical  groups  of  the 
later  Middle  Ages.  By  contrast  the  larger  bodies 
which  came  into  existence  as  the  result  of  the 
Protestant  Reformation  are  to  be  understood  as 
examples  of  churchly  religion. 

This  way  of  describing  the  difference,  however, 
fails  to  do  justice  to  the  sectarian  element  in 
the  older  Protestantism.  What  differentiates  sec¬ 
tarian  religion  from  thoroughgoing  imperialism  is 
not  that  one  is  an  example  of  churchly  religion 
and  the  other  is  not,  but  that  the  sectarian 
makes  every  religious  person  responsible  for  deter¬ 
mining  the  marks  which  the  true  Church  should 
possess,  whereas  the  imperialist  denies  him  that 
responsibility.  In  the  one  case  private  judgment 
is  an  essential  function  of  the  individual  Church 
member  ;  in  the  other  it  is  not.  But  the  sec¬ 
tarian  may  be  just  as  conscious  as  any  other 
Churchman  that  his  Church  possesses  absolute 
truth,  and  that  it  is  his  duty  to  make  all  other 
persons  acknowledge  this. 

In  the  early  days  of  Protestantism  we  find 
many  instances  of  this  combination  of  individual 
responsibility  with  intolerance  toward  others. 
When  Luther  broke  with  Zwingli  on  the  inter¬ 
pretation  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  took  his 
stand  on  his  own  understanding  of  the  words 
“  Hoc  est  corpus  meum  ”  he  was  a  true  sectarian. 
The  same  was  true  of  the  Calvinists  at  the  Synod 
of  Dort,  when  they  read  the  Arminians  out  of 
the  Church  because  they  could  not  accept  the 
Calvinistic  interpretation  of  the  divine  decree. 


128 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


Yet  both  Lutherans  and  Calvinists  claimed  to 
speak  in  the  name  of  the  Church  universal,  and 
believed  themselves  to  be  maintaining  the  con¬ 
tinuity  of  the  Christian  tradition.  We  to-day 
see  the  inconsistency  of  their  action  and  are  able 
to  account  for  it  historically.  But  at  the  time 
it  seemed  the  only  course  possible  if  they  were 
to  be  true  both  to  conscience  and  Church. 

In  our  own  day  the  sectarian  spirit  is  a  factor 
to  be  reckoned  with  in  our  efforts  to  realize 
Christian  unity.  It  will  help  us  to  deal  with  it 
intelligently  if  we  think  of  it  as  one  of  the  natural 
ways  in  which  individualistic  religion  expresses 
itself.  We  must  not  let  the  varieties  of  its 
manifestation  blind  us  to  the  essential  unity  of 
the  type.  At  first  sight  there  seems  nothing  in 
common  between  the  Anglo-Catholic,  with  his 
profound  reverence  for  antiquity  and  his  insist¬ 
ence  upon  the  necessity  of  the  three  orders  of 
the  ministry,  and  the  American  Southern  Baptist 
who  makes  the  local  congregation  the  final  seat 
of  ecclesiastical  authority  and  requires  immersion 
as  a  pre-requisite  to  communion.  But  it  would 
help  each  to  understand  the  other  if  they  could 
realize  that  they  are  both  alike  examples  of 
sectarian  religion  in  the  technical  sense.  Both 
make  a  particular  interpretation  of  Christianity 
not  shared  by  many  of  their  fellow-Christians, 
even  Christians  of  their  own  communion,  their 
test  of  other  men's  orthodoxy,  and  their  reason 
for  granting  or  refusing  them  fellowship.  The 
fact  that  the  Anglo-Catholic  claims  to  do  this  in 


PROTEST  AGAINST  IMPERIALISM  129 


the  name  of  the  Church,  and  the  Baptist  on  the 
authority  of  the  Bible,  does  not  alter  the  signific¬ 
ance  of  what  they  are  doing  in  the  least.  At 
heart  they  are  both  individualists,  and  make 
their  own  conviction  the  norm  of  the  Church 
universal. 

We  must  not  confuse  sectarianism  as  thus 
defined  with  what  is  known  to-day  as  denomina- 
tionalism.  Sectarianism  describes  an  attitude 
of  mind.  Denominationalism  calls  attention  to 
a  method  of  organization.  Under  the  denomina¬ 
tional  system  we  find  many  bodies  of  Christians 
living  side  by  side  and  co-operating  in  many 
ways  for  Christian  purposes.  Denominationalism 
may  be  ineffective  as  a  method  of  Church  govern¬ 
ment,  but  in  its  tolerant  spirit  it  is  an  expression 
of  democratic  religion,  whereas  sectarianism  per¬ 
petuates  the  imperialistic  spirit  in  Protestantism. 
The  democrat  may  criticize  denominationalism, 
but  he  can  live  with  it,  and  hope  to  improve  it. 
Sectarianism  and  democracy  are  a  contradiction 
in  terms. 


8.  Strength  and  Weakness  of  Individualistic  Re¬ 
ligion.  Its  Psychological  Basis ,  and  its 
Social  Significance 

Such  in  brief  description  is  individualistic 
religion,  with  its  sharp  contrasts  and  its  ever- 
changing  history.  What  place  shall  we  give  it 
in  our  estimate  of  religious  values  ? 

There  are  three  possible  angles  from  which 
9 


130 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


we  may  judge  individualistic  religion.  We  may 
think  of  it  as  a  protest  against  imperialism.  We 
may  regard  it  as  an  independent  and  permanent 
religious  type.  We  may  see  in  it  the  forerunner 
of  democratic  religion. 

As  a  protest  against  imperialistic  religion, 
individualism  is  abundantly  justified.  Again 
and  again  when  things  were  darkest,  both  in 
Church  and  State,  brave  spirits  have  dared  to 
break  with  existing  authority  in  the  interest  of 
a  larger  freedom.  Jesus  Himself  was  crucified 
because  He  would  not  conform.  Without  the 
heroes  and  martyrs  of  individualism  not  one  of 
all  our  priceless  liberties  would  have  been  won, 
and  the  freedom  which  is  now  possible  within 
Church  and  State  alike  would  not  be  ours.  In 
a  different  sense  from  that  in  which  it  is  ordi¬ 
narily  understood,  the  blood  of  the  martyrs  has 
been  the  seed  of  the  Church.  That  so  many 
conscientious  men  and  women  find  it  possible  to 
live  a  satisfying  life  both  in  Church  and  State 
to-day  is  due  to  the  fact  that  many  others  have 
dared  to  leave  the  Church,  and  to  defy  the 
State. 

As  an  independent  type  of  religion,  too,  there 
is  much  to  be  said  for  individualism.  There  are 
persons  whose  conscience  drives  them  into  the 
wilderness.  They  must  meet  God  in  solitude  if 
they  are  to  find  Him  at  all.  We  must  make  a 
place  in  our  social  theory  for  these  restless  and 
adventurous  souls.  Pioneers  of  the  spirit,  like 
Kipling's  Explorer,  they  push  their  way  into 


PROTEST  AGAINST  IMPERIALISM  131 


regions  which  but  for  them  would  have  remained 
undiscovered.  But  where  they  have  gone  others 
will  follow.  The  visions  seen  by  them  in  solitude 
become  the  commonplaces  of  a  later  age.  The 
example  they  set  in  their  loneliness  is  followed 
by  others  who  do  not  need  to  make  their  sacrifices. 
We  have  seen  in  the  Roman  Catholic  orders  a 
conspicuous  example  of  the  social  uses  of  the 
solitary  life.  Coming  into  existence  in  the  first 
instance  to  protect  the  seclusion  of  their  members, 
they  have  become  social  agencies  of  high  civiliz¬ 
ing  value.  A  similar  experience  repeats  itself 
in  Protestantism.  Above  all  other  Protestant 
Christians  the  Friends  have  insisted  that  the 
individual  must  be  silent  before  his  God.  But 
what  God  has  said  to  them  in  their  solitude  they 
have  lived  out  in  the  sight  of  men. 

The  psychological  basis  of  individualistic 
religion  is  the  self-regarding  impulse  in  man. 
There  is  something  in  each  one  of  us  which 
desires  expression  ;  something  in  which  we  feel 
ourselves  different  from  our  neighbours.  We  are 
independent  personalities  with  needs  and  rights 
of  our  own.  This  sense  is  developed  in  varying 
degrees  in  different  individuals.  Often  it  takes 
unlovely  and  even  dangerous  forms.  But  when 
it  is  lacking  altogether  we  feel  that  something 
fundamentally  human  is  absent.  A  man  who 
does  not  value  himself  will  not  be  respected  by 
others.  A  man  who  has  not  the  courage  to  resist 
what  his  conscience  condemns  is  morally  defective. 
Even  altruism  would  be  impossible  without  the 


132 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


self-regarding  spirit.  Before  you  can  surrender 
you  must  be  master.  In  order  that  you  may 
share,  you  must  possess. 

A  second  psychological  root  of  individualistic 
religion  is  the  law  of  rhythm  in  human  life.1 
It  is  a  fact  of  experience  that  if  we  are  to  work 
well  we  must  rest  often  ;  if  we  are  to  live  effec¬ 
tively  in  society  we  must  have  our  hours  alone. 
In  quiet  we  not  only  renew  our  energies  ;  we 
come  to  know  ourselves.  That  mysterious  realm 
of  the  subconscious  of  which  we  hear  so  much 
to-day  is  with  us  always,  and,  whether  we  wake 
or  sleep,  its  register  of  impressions  is  ceaselessly 
in  operation.  But  we  learn  what  it  has  to  teach 
us  in  the  moments  when  we  are  alone.  Our 
great  insights,  our  best  inspirations  come  to  us 
in  solitude.  “  Be  still,  and  know  that  I  am 
God,”  is  good  psychology  as  well  as  good  religion. 
But  when  we  take  this  phase  of  our  life  and  treat 
it  as  if  it  were  the  whole  we  act  unreasonably. 
Unbroken  solitude  may  be  as  demoralizing  as 
uninterrupted  companionship,  as  the  story  of 
the  monks  abundantly  proves.  Even  of  the  great 
mystics  it  is  true  that,  so  far  as  their  visions 
profess  to  bring  a  definite  content  of  knowledge, 
that  knowledge  can  be  traced  to  sources  which 
they  owe  to  contact  with  their  fellow-men.  What 
is  new  is  the  combination  of  elements,  the  in¬ 
tensity  with  which  they  are  appreciated,  and  the 
fresh  uses  which  are  made  of  them.  Contempla- 

1  Cf.  the  suggestive  discussion  of  Professor  Hocking  in  his 
Meaning  of  God  in  Human  Experience ,  chap,  xxviii. 


PROTEST  AGAINST  IMPERIALISM  133 


tion  and  activity  are  the  two  poles  of  the  normal 
life.  We  neglect  either  at  our  peril. 

In  individualistic  religion,  finally,  we  touch 
the  creative  element  in  human  experience.  That 
mysterious  power  of  the  spirit  by  which  we  form 
old  materials  into  new  combinations  and  make 
out  of  parts  a  whole  which  has  meaning  and 
beauty  is  in  a  peculiar  sense  the  prerogative  of  the 
individual.  Others  may  respond  to  the  insight, 
when  it  has  been  expressed.  Others  may  ap¬ 
propriate  the  truth  when  it  has  been  formulated. 
The  Church  may  make  the  prophet's  words  its 
own,  and  clothe  them  in  the  conventional  garb 
of  institutional  religion.  The  fact  remains  that 
the  vision  came  to  the  prophet  when  he  was  alone, 
and  till  appropriated  by  others  remained  his 
private  and  personal  possession.  Indeed  we  may 
go  further.  In  the  last  analysis  institutional 
religion  itself  owes  its  existence  to  the  creative 
insight  of  the  individual.  He  builds  the  house 
in  which  his  successors  live,  often  long  after  they 
have  forgotten  who  it  was  that  built  it. 

We  must  make  room  in  our  religion,  then,  for 
the  individual,  and  give  him  the  honour  which  is 
his  due.  But  when  he  insists  upon  making  his 
own  type  of  insight  and  experience  a  finality, 
he  ceases  to  be  a  help  and  becomes  a  menace. 
Either  he  loses  himself  in  the  contemplation  of 
God  and  is  content  to  let  the  world  go  on  its  way 
without  his  help,  or  he  makes  his  own  experience 
the  standard  for  all.  We  have  seen  illustrations 
of  both  tendencies  in  the  older  Protestantism. 


134 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


It  carried  at  its  heart  an  unresolved  antinomy. 
It  boasted  of  freedom  while  insisting  on  uni¬ 
formity,  but  the  two  claims  are  incompatible. 
We  may  have  one  or  the  other.  We  cannot  have 
both.  Yet  Protestantism  in  its  churchly  form 
has  until  recently  been  unwilling  to  surrender 
either.  It  has  been  a  half-way  house  between 
imperialism  and  democracy,  having  broken  with 
the  one  without  having  attained  the  other. 
Now  freedom  has  been  emphasized,  now  uni¬ 
formity.  Sometimes  the  individualistic  spirit 
has  gained  the  upper  hand,  and  again  the  im¬ 
perialist  has  had  the  mastery.  In  this  conflict 
there  seems  no  hope  either  of  surrender  or  of 
victory.1 

But  there  is  another  path  which  may  be 
followed  which  promises  a  happier  outcome. 
One  may  carry  one's  individualism  one  step 
further,  and  recognize  that  God  may  speak  to 
others  in  as  unique  and  original  a  way  as  He  has 

1  Professor  Hauter,  in  the  instructive  article  already  quoted, 
has  given  an  illuminating  account  of  this  inner  conflict.  Cf. 
esp.  p.  40 :  “  The  sociological  problem  of  Protestantism  thus 
appears  to  us  under  a  double  aspect.  On  the  one  hand, 
Protestantism,  in  principle  and  in  type  of  worship,  tends  to 
emphasize  individual  piety,  and  to  weaken,  if  not  destroy, 
gregarious  religion.  On  the  other  hand,  gregarious  religion  is 
strongly  entrenched  in  the  Protestant  Churches.  It  gives 
them  their  foundation,  and  effectively  counterbalances  the 
individualistic  tendencies,  without  consciously  setting  out  to  do 
so.  The  result  is  that  Protestantism  as  religious  ideal  is  in  strife 
with  Protestantism  as  ecclesiastical  institution.  To  put  it  in 
another  way,  in  the  measure  that  Protestantism  realizes  its 
true  nature,  it  destroys  the  foundation  of  its  existence  and  of 
its  historic  unity.” 


PROTEST  AGAINST  IMPERIALISM  135 


spoken  to  oneself.  One  may  abandon  once  and 
for  all  the  ideal  of  uniformity,  and  find  the  key 
to  the  free  co-operation  of  individuals  in  their 
common  experience  of  an  expanding  knowledge 
and  an  enlarging  life.  This  new  creative  form 
of  religion  has  long  been  slowly  forming  itself 
side  by  side  with  the  older  types,  but  not  until 
recently  has  it  come  to  full  self-consciousness. 
We  have  called  it  democratic  religion. 


CHAPTER  V 


DEMOCRATIC  RELIGION 

i.  What  is  meant  by  Democratic  Religion 

DEMOCRATIC  religion — the  third  member 
of  our  group — cannot  be  so  easily  studied 
as  imperialism  or  individualism.  It  has 
not  yet  found  equally  consistent  expression, 
either  personal  or  institutional.  In  the  indi¬ 
vidual  it  remains  largely  an  aspiration ;  for  the 
group  a  programme,  not  only  unachieved,  but 
in  part  unformulated. 

We  have  described  democratic  religion  pro¬ 
visionally  as  the  type  of  religion  in  which  the  call 
to  comradeship  is  most  clearly  heard  and  in  which 
the  thought  of  others  enters  as  an  integral  part 
into  one's  relation  to  God.  But  it  is  possible 
to  be  democratic  to  a  greater  or  less  degree. 
One  may  be  a  democrat  in  thought  but  not  in 
conduct,  or  in  feeling  but  not  in  thought.  One 
may  even  be  democratic  in  thought,  feeling,  and 
conduct  but  limit  the  sense  of  comradeship  to 
a  definite  group.  Aristocracy,  considered  as  a 
personal  attitude  and  not  as  a  social  distinction 
based  on  either  rank  or  wealth,  admits  of  the  free 
spiritual  fellowship  characteristic  of  democracy, 

136 


DEMOCRATIC  RELIGION 


187 


but  confines  it  to  a  limited  plumber  of  persons, 
more  or  less  rigidly  fixed. 

Our  difficulty  is  further  accentuated  by  the 
fact  that  the  democratic  spirit  has  not  yet 
succeeded  in  creating  institutions  adequate  to 
its  expression.  It  remains  as  a  leaven  in  the 
older  organizations,  modifying  their  development 
to  a  greater  or  less  degree.  Thus  denomina¬ 
tional  Protestantism  may  be  regarded  either  as 
a  group  of  rival  sects  or  as  an  emerging  free 
democracy,  according  as  greater  weight  is  laid 
upon  one  or  other  of  its  constituent  elements. 
Sabatier,  as  we  have  seen,  classes  the  older  Pro¬ 
testantism  (the  religion  of  the  Book)  as  a  religion 
of  authority  with  Catholicism  (the  religion  of  the 
Church)  over  against  the  religion  of  the  Spirit 
which  includes  both  individualism  and  democ¬ 
racy  ;  whereas  Harnack,  laying  more  stress 
on  the  free  creative  elements  in  the  religion 
of  the  Reformers,  regards  Protestantism  as  a 
single  type  in  contrast  to  both  the  great  historic 
forms  of  Catholicism.1 

1  The  fact  that  Harnack  includes  under  the  single  category 
“  Protestantism  ”  the  rigid  individualistic  type  of  religion 
which  we  have  called  Sectarianism,  and  the  freer  democratic 
type  which  makes  room  for  difference  and  progress,  is  no  doubt 
in  part  to  be  explained  because  the  difference  between  these 
two  types  is  expressed  in  no  difference  in  outward  organization 
corresponding  to  the  break  between  the  Greek  and  Roman 
Churches.  Yet  Sabatier  has  shown  that  we  are  dealing  with 
types  quite  as  distinct.  As  Greek  Christianity  represents  the 
static  form  of  institutionalism,  while  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  in  its  power  of  adaptation  and  adjustment  is  the  typical 
example  of  thoroughgoing  imperialism,  so  the  older  Protest- 


138 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


We  must  therefore  construct  our  picture  of 
democratic  religion  by  combining  the  common 
elements  in  many  different  examples,  giving 
preference  to  those  in  which  the  democratic 
spirit  finds  most  thoroughgoing  and  consistent 
expression. 

Thirty  odd  years  ago  a  young  English 
physician  faced  the  question  of  his  life's  future. 
He  had  completed  his  professional  studies  with 
distinction,  and  was  looking  about  for  a  practice, 
when  a  friend  happened  to  call  his  attention  to 
the  condition  of  the  deep  sea  fishermen  in  the 
North  Sea.  It  seems  that  some  good  people, 
moved  by  the  loneliness  and  exposure  of  these 
fishers'  lives,  and,  above  all,  by  their  almost 
complete  deprivation  of  the  conventional  forms 
of  religion,  had  conceived  the  plan  of  fitting  out 
a  little  steamer  to  accompany  them  on  their 
fishing  trips  as  a  floating  chapel  and  house  of 
friendship.  The  boat  was  secured,  equipped 
and  manned,  with  a  single  exception.  A 
surgeon  was  needed  who  would  be  willing  to 
make  the  steamer  his  headquarters  and  practise 
his  profession  among  the  fishermen,  while  at 
sea. 

The  idea  appealed  to  the  young  doctor's 

antism  represents  the  first  of  the  two  alternative  forms  which 
individualistic  religion  of  the  missionary  kind  may  take — the 
rigid,  uncompromising  type  we  have  called  sectarianism  — 
whereas  the  later  Protestantism  has  adopted  the  other  possible 
alternative,  and  is  becoming  more  and  more  consistently  demo¬ 
cratic.  Cf.  my  article,  “  Is  our  Protestantism  still  Pro¬ 
testant  ?  ”  Harvard  Theological  Review ,  1908,  p.  28  seq. 


DEMOCRATIC  RELIGION 


139 


spirit  of  adventure.  He  abandoned  the  thought 
of  a  conventional  practice,  applied  for  the  post, 
and  became  the  physician  of  the  London  Deep 
Sea  Mission. 

Some  years  later  a  second  call  came  to  him, 
which  carried  him  to  a  new  continent.  Hard  as 
is  the  lot  of  the  North  Sea  fishermen  of  England, 
their  time  at  sea  comes  to  an  end  at  last,  and 
when  they  turn  their  faces  homeward,  they 
reach  a  country  where  there  are  churches  and 
schools,  hospitals  and  libraries,  and  all  the  other 
accompaniments  of  a  Christian  civilization.  But 
there  were  other  fisher-folk  of  the  same  stock 
who  are  not  so  fortunate.  Along  the  North¬ 
east  shore  of  British  America  there  stretches  the 
lonely  coast  known  as  the  Labrador.  Here  live 
the  Canadian  fishermen,  who  ply  their  trade  in 
the  North  Atlantic.  These  had  no  schools,  no 
hospitals,  few  churches — only  the  saloon  and 
the  trader's  store.  Men  died  for  want  of  a 
doctor.  Minds  starved  for  lack  of  a  teacher. 
Souls  with  deep  religious  longings  were  left 
unshepherded,  because  their  fellow-Christians 
had  forgotten  them. 

The  thought  of  these  lonely  people  would  not 
let  the  young  doctor  alone.  If  no  one  else  was 
available  he  determined  to  go  to  them.  So  he 
bade  good-bye  to  his  friends  in  the  North  Sea, 
and  started  on  this  new  adventure. 

What  Wilfred  Grenfell  has  done  in  thirty 
years  in  the  Labrador  is  too  well  known  to 
need  retelling.  Hospitals  have  been  established, 


140 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


staffed  and  sustained.  Industries  have  been 
started,  schools  provided,  churches  enlarged  and 
strengthened.  The  conscience  of  two  continents 
has  been  aroused,  and  friends  raised  up  by  the 
thousand  who  have  made  these  lonely  lives  their 
concern.  But  what  interests  us  here  is  what 
has  been  going  on  in  Grenfell  himself.  If  you 
asked  him  what  first  took  him  to  the  Labrador 
he  would  tell  you,  “  Religion. ”  If  you  asked 
him  what  the  Labrador  had  given  him  in  return, 
he  would  still  answer,  "  Religion/ ' 

In  his  journey  from  one  hospital  to  another 
along  the  coast,  it  was  often  necessary  for  Dr. 
Grenfell,  when  navigation  was  no  longer  possible, 
to  traverse  some  inlet  of  the  sea  on  the  ice.  On 
one  of  these  journeys  a  sudden  change  of  the 
weather  cut  him  off  from  the  mainland  and  set 
him  adrift  on  an  ice-pan  which  was  carrying  him 
out  to  the  open  sea.  Like  Gerard,  he  found 
himself  alone  in  bitter  cold.  But  whereas  the 
individualist  Gerard  risked  death  as  a  means 
of  saving  his  own  soul,  Grenfell  the  democrat 
could  think  only  of  how  his  death  might  affect 
the  work  he  was  engaged  in.  “  Except  for 
my  friends/'  he  writes,  “  I  had  nothing  I  could 
think  of  to  regret  whatever."  1  When,  after 
hours  of  exposure,  deliverance  came  at  last,  he 
was  glad  to  be  back  once  more  with  a  new  lease 
of  life  before  him.  “  I  had  learned  on  the  pan 
many  things,  but  chiefly  that  the  one  cause  for 
regret,  when  we  look  back  on  a  life  which  we 

1  Grenfell,  A  Voyage  on  a  Pan  of  Ice,  Boston,  1908,  p.  10. 


DEMOCRATIC  RELIGION 


141 


think  is  closed  for  ever,  will  be  the  fact  that  we 
have  wasted  its  opportunities/ ’ 1 

A  type  of  religion  is  illustrated  in  this  life- 
story  which  is  clearly  distinguishable  from  the 
others  we  have  observed.  The  responsibility  of 
the  individual  is  one  of  its  fundamental  beliefs. 
The  missionary  spirit  is  its  moving  force.  But 
its  characteristic  note  is  fellowship.  The  democrat 
in  religion  trusts  men  and  is  trusted  by  them. 
Wherever  man  meets  man,  he  finds  God  at  work. 
Dr.  Post,  of  the  Syrian  Protestant  College  in 
Beirut,  was  able  to  enter  sympathetically  into 
the  prayer  life  of  the  devout  Mohammedans  with 
whom  his  work  as  a  surgeon  brought  him  into 
contact,  and  to  detect,  beneath  the  differences  in 
form,  a  common  piety.  Dr.  Timothy  Richard 
of  Shanghai  won  the  confidence  of  his  Chinese 
neighbours  so  completely  that  they  even  allowed 
him  to  interpret  their  religion  to  others.  At  a 
congress  of  religions  when  stage  fright  overtook 


1  Ibid.  p.  14.  In  a  later  article,  he  explains  more  fully  what 
these  opportunities  were.  “  Over  thirty  years  in  the  North 
has  left  me  an  increasingly  confirmed  belief  in  the  worthful- 
ness  of  the  people,  who  by  their  simplicity,  rugged  honesty,  and 
latent  ability,  more  than  justify  any  effort  made  on  their  behalf, 
by  the  return  they  make  to  the  world,  and  the  contribution 
they  will  yet  make  to  the  future.  My  own  association  with 
them,  over  a  period  of  many  years  and  in  time  of  stress,  as 
well  as  when  life’s  outlook  was  brightest  for  them,  has  been  a 
source  of  infinite  satisfaction  to  me.  Those  who  know  them 
most  intimately  would  agree  with  me  that  we  are  in  the  debt 
of  those  men,  and  that  the  North  has  been  able  to  give  back 
to  us  ten  times  what  we  have  been  able  to  offer  to  it  ”  (“  Thirty 
Years  in  the  Labrador,”  Congregational  Quarterly ,  London, 
April  1923). 


142 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


the  Taoist  Pope,  he  turned  to  Dr.  Richards  and 
said,  “  Will  you  speak  for  me  ?  ”  and  the 
Christian  missionary  gave  a  sympathetic  pres¬ 
entation  of  Taoism  to  the  audience.  The  sym¬ 
pathy  of  Miss  Jane  Addams  with  the  men  and 
women  of  many  nationalities  living  in  the  neigh¬ 
bourhood  of  Hull  House  brought  a  new  realiza¬ 
tion  of  the  meaning  of  Christian  brotherhood 
first  to  a  great  city,  and  then  to  the  whole  nation. 
In  these  and  similar  experiences  we  are  aware 
of  a  new  approach  to  God.  They  are  examples 
of  democratic  religion. 

2.  Democratic  Religion  distinguished  from  the 
Religion  of  Equality  ;  from  the  Religion  of 
the  Majority.  The  Place  of  Progress  in 
Democratic  Religion 

In  choosing  the  name  “  democratic  ”  to 
describe  the  religion  of  fellowship,  we  must  guard 
ourselves  against  a  natural  misconception.  To 
many  readers  the  term  “  democracy  ”  has  an 
exclusively  political  connotation.  Dean  Inge,  in 
his  Outspoken  Essays ,x  has  warned  us  of  the 
danger  of  an  unthinking  glorification  of  political 
democracy.  He  reminds  us  of  its  empty  boasts, 
and  of  its  costly  mistakes.  But  political  de¬ 
mocracy  is  only  one  form  through  which  the 
democratic  spirit  may  be  expressed,  and  even  in 
the  political  sphere  we  must  distinguish  accom¬ 
plishment  from  ideal.  Democracy,  as  we  are 

1  First  series,  p.  5  seq. 


DEMOCRATIC  RELIGION 


143 


concerned  with  it  here,  is  an  attitude  toward  life, 
and  because  it  is  here,  and  here  to  stay,  we  must 
study  it  sympathetically,  trying  to  understand 
not  only  what  it  has  done  but  what  it  would 
like  to  do.  In  contrasting  types  one  must  set 
ideal  against  ideal.  It  is  as  unreasonable  to 
judge  democracy  by  its  failures  as  it  would  be 
to  judge  imperialism  or  individualism  by  theirs. 

How,  then,  shall  we  define  democracy  as  a 
spiritual  attitude  ?  The  democrat  of  whom  we 
are  thinking  is  one  who  makes  earnest  with  the 
social  aspects  of  personality,  and  really  believes 
that  all  men  are  members  one  of  another.  By  a 
personality  he  means  a  self-conscious  and  self- 
determining  being  who  has  become  what  he  is 
through  contact  with  others,  and  expresses  him¬ 
self  best  through  relations  to  persons.  He  be¬ 
lieves  that  every  one  has  it  in  him  to  become 
to  a  greater  or  less  extent  such  a  centre  of  helpful 
social  influence,  and  the  test  which  he  applies 
to  every  form  of  progress  is  to  ask  what  it  will 
contribute  to  the  making  and  training  of  per¬ 
sonalities. 

The  salient  points  in  this  definition  are  (i) 
the  conception  of  personality  as  potential  in  all 
men,  rather  than  as  actual,  still  less  as  equally 
realized  ;  (2)  the  part  assigned  to  other  persons, 
not  only  in  training  each  new  personality  for 
self-expression,  but  in  furnishing  the  only  medium 
through  which  adequate  self-expression  is  possible. 
Although  the  democrat  perceives  the  limits 
which  now  shut  him  out  from  other  lives — limits 


144 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


of  knowledge,  limits  of  taste,  limits  of  char¬ 
acter — he  is  unwilling  to  accept  them  as  final. 
He  need  be  under  no  illusion  as  to  humanity  as 
it  is.  He  need  have  no  blind  faith  in  progress 
as  though  it  were  some  mysterious  force  operat¬ 
ing  on  us  apart  from  our  own  will.  But  he  must 
believe  that  it  is  in  all  men,  even  the  worst  of 
them,  to  be  better  than  they  are,  and  that  we 
must  help  one  another  to  become  so.  More  than 
this,  he  must  be  convinced  that  only  through 
this  effort  in  his  own  case  will  he  develop  his  own 
fullest  life. 

In  accepting  this  definition  we  avoid  several 
common  errors.  We  do  not  confuse  democracy 
with  equality.  By  the  religion  of  democracy 
we  do  not  mean  the  religion  of  the  crowd.  The 
apotheosis  of  the  average  man  has  done  and  is 
doing  much  harm  in  the  world,  but  it  has  nothing 
to  do  with  democracy,  as  we  have  defined  it. 
The  democrat  does  not  believe  that  all  men 
are  equal  either  in  character  or  in  attainments. 
He  knows  very  well  that  one  man  is  not  as  good 
as  another  for  any  purpose  to  which  you  may 
set  him.  He  does  not  suppose  that  God  has 
the  same  word  to  speak  to  every  one  or  the  same 
work  for  every  one  to  do,  but  he  is  sure  that  God 
has  some  word  to  speak  to  every  one,  and  some 
work  for  each  person  to  do.1  The  equality  in 

1  Walter  Page  was  a  typical  democrat  in  the  sense  in  wdiich 
we  are  here  using  the  term.  His  biographer  says  of  him  :  “  Page 
had  a  profound  respect  for  a  human  being  simply  because  he 
was  a  human  being  ;  the  mere  fact  that  a  man,  woman,  or  child 
lived  and  breathed,  had  his  virtues  and  his  failings,  constituted 


DEMOCRATIC  RELIGION 


145 


which  he  believes  is  the  equality  of  opportunity  ; 
the  unity  after  which  he  aspires  makes  room  for 
difference. 

Nor  is  the  democracy  of  which  we  are  thinking 
the  same  thing  as  the  rule  of  the  majority.  A 
belief  in  the  rule  of  the  majority  is  compatible 
with  the  belief  in  a  necessary  conflict  of  interests 
between  men.  The  rule  of  the  majority  helps 
to  reduce  the  evils  which  result  from  this  con¬ 
flict,  but  it  does  not  remove  them.  After  their 
combination  as  before,  the  units  who  make  up 
the  majority  may  remain  self-centred,  often 
antagonistic.  The  conception  of  democracy  here 
advocated,  on  the  other  hand,  starts  with  the 
postulate  that  the  individual  is  not  an  isolated 
unit,  complete  in  himself.  He  is  a  member  of  a 
larger  society  through  loyalty  to  which  his  own 
best  interests  are  realized. 

This  accounts  for  the  large  part  which  belief 
in  progress  plays  in  the  thinking  of  democrats. 
In  principle  there  is  no  reason  why  democracy 
should  not  be  as  compatible  with  a  static  philo¬ 
sophy  as  imperialism  or  individualism.  But  in 
practice  the  conditions  for  completely  realizing 


in  Page’s  imagination  a  tremendous  fact.  He  could  not  wound 
such  a  living  creature  any  more  than  he  could  wound  a  flower 
or  a  tree.  Consequently  he  treated  every  human  being  as 
an  important  member  of  the  universe.  .  .  .  Page  said  ‘  good 
morning  ’  to  the  doorman  with  the  same  deference  that  he 
showed  to  Sir  Edward  Grey,  and  there  was  not  a  little  steno¬ 
grapher  in  the  building  whose  joys  and  sorrows  did  not  arouse 
in  him  the  most  friendly  interest  ”  ( Life  and  Letters,  vol.  ii. 
p.  297). 


146 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


the  democratic  ideal  do  not  yet  exist.  The 
limitations  which  give  point  to  Dean  Inge's 
criticism  of  existing  democracies  are  patent  to 
every  observer.  They  can  be  removed  only 
through  a  process  of  education  in  which  the 
capacities  latent  in  each  individual  are  fully 
developed.  This  requires  patience  and  goodwill 
on  the  part  of  those  who  teach,  and  also  pro¬ 
vision  for  organized  teaching  on  a  larger  scale 
than  has  yet  been  attempted  by  any  existing 
Church  or  State.  The  democrat  believes  that 
such  organization  is  possible,  and  he  is  com¬ 
mitted  to  the  attempt  to  create  it. 

Democrats  differ  in  their  estimate  of  the 
difficulties  to  be  overcome  before  the  democratic 
ideal  can  be  realized.  Some  believe  that  demo¬ 
cratic  religion  is  to-day  everywhere  practicable 
if  only  those  who  are  really  democrats  in  spirit 
would  make  their  conduct  match  their  creed. 
Others,  no  less  convinced,  do  not  share  the  hope 
of  a  speedy  victory.  They  see  that  imperialism 
and  individualism  have  deep  roots  in  human 
nature,  and  a  needed  part  to  play  in  human 
progress.  They  realize  that  for  a  completely 
democratic  society  a  long  preparatory  process  of 
education  is  necessary,  and  that  in  the  mean¬ 
time  we  must  find  some  way  to  live  with  men  of 
other  types  in  a  spirit  of  brotherhood.  To  them 
the  immediate  duty  is  to  multiply  the  points  of 
contact  between  men  and  to  trust  to  time  to  do 
the  rest.  But  all  democrats  believe  that  the 
way  to  know  God  is  to  understand  men,  and  the 


DEMOCRATIC  RELIGION 


147 


way  to  understand  men  is  to  trust  the  best  that 
is  in  them. 

These  principles  and  convictions  mould  the 
religion  of  the  democrat.  Because  he  thinks  of 
God  to-day  as  in  the  past  as  engaged  in  making 
and  training  persons,  he  expects  to  commune 
with  Him  best  through  fellowship  with  persons. 
He  values  his  hours  of  solitude  because  they 
make  possible  visions  of  truth,  beauty,  and 
goodness  which  he  can  share  with  others.  He 
tests  institutions  by  their  ability  to  fit  men 
to  co-operate  in  the  discovery  and  appropria¬ 
tion  of  spiritual  values  on  the  widest  possible 
scale. 

The  conception  of  God  as  a  great  helper, 
training  men  to  be  helpful,  determines  the  char¬ 
acter  of  the  democrat’s  religion  at  every  point. 
It  determines  the  character  of  his  worship. 
Since  God  is  the  Father  of  many  children,  the 
better  he  comes  to  know  God,  the  more  he  will 
care  for  men.  It  determines  the  character  of 
his  education.  He  studies  God’s  word  in  nature 
and  in  the  Bible,  but  he  includes  in  his  library 
of  revelation  the  “  living  epistles  ”  who  walk  and 
work  by  his  side.  It  determines  the  character 
of  his  discipline.  He  keeps  his  body  under ; 
he  rules  his  desires,  and  masters  his  will,  but  it 
is  to  make  himself  a  more  effective  instrument 
for  doing  his  share  of  the  common  work.  Service 
performed  in  the  democratic  spirit  becomes  in 
the  truest  and  fullest  sense  social  service — work 
done  not  simply  for  others  but  with  others.  The 


148 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


missionary  motive  which  is  the  very  life-breath 
of  democratic  religion  is  not  only  a  desire  to  give 
to  others,  but  to  make  givers  of  others.1 

3.  Democratic  Religion  in  contrast  to  Im¬ 
perialism  and  to  Individualism 

This  analysis  will  make  clear  to  us  what  the 
democrat's  religion  has  in  common  with  the 

1  This  conception  of  democratic  religion,  it  need  hardly  be 
said,  is  very  different  from  another  which  has  recently  found 
advocates  in  the  circles  of  pluralistic  philosophy.  According 
to  this  view,  God  is  not  simply  the  guide  and  teacher  of  h  pro¬ 
gressive  society,  but  is  Himself  the  subject  of  progress.  He, 
too,  is  moving  toward  an  end  He  cannot  foresee,  and  engaging 
in  experiments  of  whose  outcome  He  is  as  ignorant  as  their 
human  subjects.  To  those  who  take  this  view  of  democratic 
religion  it  seems  unworthy  of  their  dignity  to  own  any  sovereign, 
even  one  who  is  divine.  As  human  kings  have  yielded  place 
before  the  rising  tide  of  democracy,  so  God  Himself  must  step 
down  from  His  heavenly  throne  and  become  a  comrade  among 
comrades.  If,  in  His  upward  course,  He  stumble  and  hesitate, 
it  will  only  give  His  human  comrades  the  better  chance  to  help 
Him.  The  true  God  of  this  type  of  democrat  is  society  itself, 
in  its  ideal  aspects,  and  each  individual  as  a  part  of  the  ideal 
society. 

It  is  perhaps  sufficient  to  say  of  this  version  of  democratic 
religion  that  those  who  advocate  it  show  little  understanding 
of  the  driving  forces  in  living  religion.  If  our  analysis  of  the 
religious  experience  has  been  even  measurably  correct,  a  God 
to  whom  one  did  not  look  up  would  be  a  contradiction  in  terms. 
There  may  be  limitations  for  the  Deity  to  overcome  ;  but  what 
makes  Him  God  is  man’s  confidence  in  His  power  to  overcome 
them.  The  God  of  democratic  religion  is  in  a  true  sense  comrade, 
entering  by  sympathy  into  each  human  life,  and  helping  it  to 
its  appropriate  goal  ;  but  He  is  a  comrade  who  is  adequate 
to  every  changing  need,  and  who  asks  of  those  to  whom  His 
help  is  daily  extended  this  only,  that  they  in  their  turn  should 
become  helpers  of  others. 


DEMOCRATIC  RELIGION 


149 


other  religious  types  which  we  have  studied, 
and  wherein  it  differs  from  them.  Democratic 
religion  takes  its  departure  from  the  altruistic 
impulse  in  man.  Democrats,  to  be  sure,  have  no 
monopoly  of  altruism.  Love  of  one's  fellows  is 
as  natural  to  man  as  love  of  self.  The  imperialist 
feels  it  as  well  as  the  democrat,  and  even  the 
most  thoroughgoing  individualist  is  not  immune. 
But  the  democrat's  altruism  differs  from  the 
altruism  of  others  both  in  range  and  in  char¬ 
acter.  To  them  love  to  man  is  a  corollary 
which  follows  from  love  to  God,  and  extends 
only  as  far  as  God  may  require.  To  him  it  is 
an  integral  part  of  love  for  God,  which  cannot 
exist  without  it. 

For  one  thing,  the  democrat's  sympathy 
with  men  extends  further  than  the  sympathy 
of  the  imperialist  or  the  individualist.  The 
imperialist  gives  alms  to  all,  but  fellowship 
to  those  who  are  within  the  Church  or  who 
may  eventually  enter  it.  The  individualist  is 
drawn  to  those  who  share  his  own  type  of 
experience  but  feels  repelled  by  others.  The 
ideal  of  the  democrat  is  a  sympathy  as  wide 
as  man. 

Not  only  is  the  democrat  interested  in  more 
people.  He  is  interested  in  a  different  way. 
His  fellow-feeling  takes  the  form  of  a  willingness 
to  learn  as  well  as  to  teach  ;  to  receive  as  well 
as  to  give. 

This  difference  in  the  conception  of  human 
fellowship  reflects  a  difference  in  the  view  of  the 


150 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


divine  purpose.  The  imperialist  does  not  expect 
to  receive  anything  helpful  from  those  who  are 
outside  the  Church  because  of  his  conviction 
that  in  matters  affecting  man's  salvation  God 
has  chosen  to  speak  only  through  the  Church. 
The  individualist  expects  no  help  from  men  of 
differing  experience  because  he  is  convinced  that 
the  message  he  has  received  is  God's  final  word 
to  him.  But  the  consistent  democrat  believes 
that  it  is  God's  nature  to  impart  Himself  freely 
to  all  kinds  of  people,  and  he  expects  messages 
from  God  to  come  through  uncongenial  or  un¬ 
promising  people,  whose  insight  differs  from 
his  own. 

The  gifted  Roman  Catholic,  Alice  Meynell,  to 
whom  Francis  Thompson  owed  so  much,  has 
given  us  in  a  poem  called  “  The  Unknown  God  " 
a  moving  description  of  the  fellowship  which 
Catholic  religion  makes  possible.  In  the  celebra¬ 
tion  of  the  Mass,  the  most  august  of  all  the 
sacraments,  when  God  intervenes  directly  in 
miracle,  she  finds  room  for  human  sympathy. 
As  she  kneels,  waiting  her  turn  to  go  up  to  the 
altar  and  to  receive  at  the  priest's  hands  the 
body  of  her  Lord,  she  is  conscious  of  a  worshipper 
kneeling  at  her  side  who  has  just  partaken  of 
the  sacrament.  She  becomes  vividly  aware  that 
the  Christ  whom  she  has  come  to  meet  is  even 
now  revealing  Himself  to  this  disciple.  He  is 
unknown  to  her,  but  he  is  no  stranger  to  her 
Lord.  Christ  is  present  in  his  heart  ;  and  her 
spirit,  crossing  the  barriers  of  ignorance  and 


DEMOCRATIC  RELIGION 


151 


mystery,  appeals  to  the  Christ  who  is  blessing 
her  brother  to  bless  her  also. 

One  of  the  crowd  went  up 

And  knelt  before  the  Paten  and  the  Cup, 

Received  the  Lord,  returned  in  peace,  and  prayed 
Close  to  my  side — then  in  my  heart  I  said  : 

“  O  Christ,  in  this  man’s  life, 

This  stranger  who  is  Thine  in  all  his  strife 
All  his  felicity,  his  good  and  ill, 

In  the  assaulted  stronghold  of  his  will , 

“  I  do  confess  Thee  here, 

Alive  within  this  life  ;  I  know  Thee  near 
Within  this  lonely  conscience,  closed  away 
Within  this  brother’s  solitary  day. 

“  Christ  in  His  unknown  heart, 

His  intellect  unknown,  this  love,  this  art. 

This  battle  and  this  peace,  this  destinj^ 

That  I  shall  never  know,  look  upon  me  ! 

“  Christ  in  His  numbered  breath, 

Christ  in  His  beating  heart  and  in  His  death, 

Christ  in  His  mystery  !  From  that  secret  place, 

And  from  that  separate  dwelling,  give  me  grace.” 

Without  a  sympathetic  understanding  of  this 
experience  we  cannot  do  justice  to  the  democratic 
element  in  Roman  Catholic  religion.  We  have 
called  attention  to  the  way  in  which  through 
the  penitential  system  Rome  fosters  the  sense 
of  individual  responsibility.  But  the  gift  of 
forgiveness  offered  to  each  penitent  spirit  in  the 
Mass  is  not  meant  for  him  only.  The  Church 
offers  him  the  opportunity  of  individual  salva¬ 
tion,  but  also  the  privilege  of  helping  to  save 
other  souls.  There  is  much  in  the  practice  of 


152 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


the  Roman  Church  which  is  repellent  to  Prot¬ 
estants  when  considered  as  an  expression  of 
individual  piety,  but  which  when  understood  as 
a  provision  for  helpfulness  assumes  a  different 
aspect.  Practices  which  to  most  Protestants 
seem  superstitious  and  debasing,  such  as  masses 
for  the  dead,  indulgences,  the  invoking  of  the 
intercession  of  saints,  are  evidences  to  the  Catholic 
of  the  corporate  character  of  his  religion.  Even 
the  distinction  between  the  ordinary  Christian 
and  the  monk  has  its  social  justification  in  the 
wider  possibilities  of  service  which  the  stricter 
life  makes  possible.  All  have  not  the  same  gifts 
or  the  same  office.  Yet  each  is  a  member  of  the 
one  society,  and  the  welfare  of  each  is  the  concern 
of  all. 

This  ideal  of  a  society  differing  in  gifts  and 
graces,  yet  all  united  in  love  to  God  and  in 
sympathy  for  one  another,  finds  its  most  beautiful 
expression  in  the  well-known  passage  in  the 
Paradiso,  in  which  the  poet  converses  with 
Piccarda,  the  moon  spirit.  When  he  asks  her 
whether  those  “  who  are  happy  here  desire  a 
higher  place,1 '  she  answers,  “  Brother,  a  virtue 
of  charity  sets  at  rest  our  will,  which  makes  us 
wish  that  only  which  we  have,  and  lets  us  not 
thirst  for  aught  else.  If  we  desired  to  be  more 
on  high,  our  desires  would  be  out  of  harmony 
with  the  will  of  Him  who  distributes  us  here,  for 
which  thou  wilt  see  there  is  no  capacity  in  these 
circles,  if  to  be  in  charity  is  necessary  here,  and 
if  thou  regardest  well  its  nature.  Rather  is  it 


DEMOCRATIC  RELIGION 


153 


formal  to  this  blessed  existence  to  hold  oneself 
within  the  divine  will,  wherefore  our  wills  them¬ 
selves  become  one.  So  that  as  we  are,  from 
threshold  to  threshold,  throughout  this  realm,  it 
pleases  all  the  realm,  as  well  as  the  King  who 
makes  us  will  within  His  will.  In  His  will  is  our 
peace ;  it  is  that  sea  whereunto  all  moves,  that 
which  it  creates  and  which  Nature  makes.” 1 

In  practice  this  spirit  of  helpfulness  and 
sympathy  is  limited  in  various  ways.  It  extends 
so  far  only  as  the  Church  permits.  Within  the 
Catholic  fold  all  are  brothers  with  whom  it  is 
one’s  privilege  to  work  and  to  sympathize. 
Outside  the  fold  there  are  others  who  may  in 
time  become  Catholics.  It  is  right  to  intercede 
for  them,  and  for  their  conversion  one  may 
sacrifice  much.  But  sympathy  is  ruled  out  in 
the  case  of  those  who  obstinately  and  persistently 
refuse  the  ministry  of  the  Church.  They  are 
strangers  from  whom  one  must  hold  aloof, 
enemies  whom  one  must  resist.  Between  the 
Catholic  and  the  non-Catholic  there  is  a  great  gulf 
fixed.2 

1  The  Divine  Comedy,  Butler’s  translation  (The  Paradise  of 
Dante  Alighieri),  London,  1885,  Canto  111. 

2  The  question  of  the  salvation  of  those  who  are  outside 
the  Roman  Church  has  been  much  debated  by  Catholic 
theologians.  The  evidence  of  the  working  of  God’s  Spirit  in 
the  lives  of  non-Catholics  is  too  plain  to  be  denied.  A  solution 
is  found  in  the  doctrine  of  invincible  ignorance — the  doctrine, 
that  is,  that  those  who  would  have  submitted  to  the  Church, 
had  they  clearly  perceived  what  submission  meant,  will  be 
judged,  not  according  to  their  actions,  but  according  to  their 
intention.  In  this  way  it  is  possible  for  a  good  Catholic  to 


154 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


If  possible,  the  line  between  the  true  and  the 
false  is  still  more  sharply  drawn  in  the  older 
Protestantism.  The  Christian  shows  his  grati¬ 
tude  to  God  for  salvation  by  means  of  helpful¬ 
ness  to  all,  but  sympathy  is  reserved  for  fellow- 
disciples.  The  first  effect  of  the  Protestant 
emphasis  upon  individual  responsibility  was  to 
narrow  social  sympathy.  Altruism  took  the 
form  of  sharing  with  others,  but  not  of  receiving 
from  them.  Indeed,  the  early  Protestants  did 
not  suspect  that  there  was  anything  to  receive. 
This  type  of  religion  made  strong  characters 
but  narrow  ones.  In  Geneva  or  in  Scotland, 
where  the  Church  controlled  the  State,  a  high 
standard  of  social  morality  was  maintained, — not 
always  by  methods  we  should  approve  to-day. 
Little  was  known  or  cared  about  people  of  distant 
lands,  or  of  other  faiths.  Imperialistic  Rome, 
not  individualistic  Protestantism,  first  made 
world-wide  missions  a  reality. 

But  Protestantism  possessed  one  asset  which 
was  lacking  in  Catholicism,  and  that  was  the  open 
Bible.  The  Bible  has  always  been  the  great 
school  of  democratic  religion,  for  the  Bible  tells 
us  the  story  of  religion  in  the  making,  and  in  its 

believe  that  his  Protestant  neighbour  may  be  saved.  The 
Roman  Catholic’s  acceptance  of  Trinitarian  baptism  as  valid 
further  simplifies  the  case,  for  it  makes  the  great  majority 
of  Protestants  members  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  living 
in  schism,  and  relieves  them  of  the  burden  of  Adam’s  sin,  of 
which  they  would  otherwise  be  guilty.  For  such  persons  a 
perfect  contrition,  which  is  theoretically  possible  to  them, 
would  take  the  place  of  the  other  sacraments,  of  which  their 
lack  of  understanding  has  deprived  them. 


DEMOCRATIC  RELIGION 


155 


pages  many  different  types  of  religion  find  ex¬ 
pression  side  by  side.  Our  Protestant  fathers 
were  preparing  the  way  for  better  things  when 
they  took  the  Bible  as  the  text-book  of  religion, 
and  insisted  on  the  right  of  each  believer  to  inter¬ 
pret  it  for  himself.  To  be  sure,  they  did  not 
themselves  realize  what  they  were  doing.  They 
assumed  that  all  true  believers  would  interpret 
the  Bible  alike.  Their  theory  made  no  place  for 
the  differences  which  did  in  fact  emerge.  Only 
later  and  under  the  influence  of  a  different  and 
a  more  tolerant  philosophy  did  their  successors 
discover  that  unity  and  variety  aremot  necessarily 
inconsistent,  and  begin  to  find  their  way  to  a 
truly  democratic  religion.1 

1  The  process,  to  be  sure,  was  slower  than  could  have  been 
wished,  and  did  not  always  lead  along  the  lines  one  would  have 
anticipated.  Of  the  two  types  of  individualistic  religion  we 
have  distinguished,  negative  or  legalistic  religion,  and  positive 
or  mystical  religion,  we  might  have  expected  the  latter  to  show 
itself  the  most  effective  school  of  democracy.  And  in  the  case 
of  the  Friends  this  expectation  has  been  justified.  But  it  has 
not  always  proved  so.  Of  the  two  branches  of  European 
Protestantism,  Lutheranism  and  Calvinism,  Lutheranism  has, 
on  the  whole,  laid  most  emphasis  upon  the  mystical  aspect  of 
religion.  It  has  concentrated  attention  upon  a  typical  indi¬ 
vidual  experience  which  it  would  have  all  who  came  after 
reproduce  without  change.  Calvinism,  on  the  other  hand,  has 
made  much  of  the  law  of  God,  and  points  men  to  the  Bible, 
as  the  sufficient  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  The  difference,  to 
be  sure,  is  only  one  of  emphasis,  not  of  absolute  contrast. 
Calvinism  has  had  its  mystics  as  well  as  Lutheranism,  and 
Lutheran  divines  make  place  in  their  theology  for  a  locus  on 
the  law  of  God.  Still,  the  difference  of  emphasis  is  there,  and 
it  has  had  unforeseen  consequences.  It  is  not  Lutheranism, 
with  its  mystical  interpretation  of  justification  and  the  sacra¬ 
ments,  but  Calvinism,  with  its  proclamation  of  God’s  law  in 


156 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


4.  Illustrations  of  Democratic  Religion  outside 
the  Churches .  The  Religious  Spirit  in  Science  ; 
in  Education  ;  in  Philanthropy ;  in  Industry  ; 
in  Politics 

*  v  ,  •  »  ' 

It  will  help  us  to  understand  the  far-reaching 
^significance  of  the  change,  and  to  estimate  at  its 
true  importance  the  new  type  of  experience  to 
which  it  has  given  rise  if,  before  considering 
the  familiar  examples  of  democratic  religion  which 
meet  us  in  the  Churches,  we  glance  briefly  at 
certain  other  manifestations  of  the  democratic 
spirit  which  parallel  them,  and  have  helped  to 
prepare  the  way  for  them. 

It  is  an  inspiring  experience  for  the  man  who 
is  religious  to  find  confirmation  of  his  deepest 
intuitions  in  spheres  of  life  which  are  commonly 

the  Bible,  which  in  practice  has  left  most  scope  for  freedom  and 
variety.  And  the  reason  is  not  far  to  seek.  For  law — \vhether 
religious  or  secular — has  to  do  with  conduct,  which  must  always 
adapt  itself  to  the  new  conditions  of  a  changing  environment. 
As  a  social  product,  the  result  of  many  successive  insights,  it 
has  grown  up  little  by  little  through  a  long  period  of  time,  and 
in  the  course  of  its  history  is  open  to  constant  reinterpretation. 
In  the  Bible  we  have  the  story  not  only  of  God’s  dealing  with 
individual  men  and  women,  but  of  the  way  in  which  He  has 
been  training  the  race  in  a  constantly  clearer  apprehension  of 
His  purpose.  In  insisting  upon  the  duty  of  the  individual  to 
study  the  Bible  for  himself,  therefore,  Calvinism  was  helping 
to  recover  the  social  aspects  of  religion  which  the  earlier  Pro¬ 
testantism  tended  to  overlook.  We  have  here  an  illustration 
of  the  truth,  too  often  forgotten  to-day,  that  law  is  not  incon¬ 
sistent  with  liberty  in  religion,  any  more  than  in  politics,  but, 
on  the  contrary,  as  our  Puritan  fathers  rightly  perceived,  an 
indispensable  agency  which  freedom  requires  for  its  adequate 
social  expression. 


DEMOCRATIC  RELIGION 


157 


supposed  to  have  little  or  no  connection  with 
religion.  Such  confirmation  the  democrat  in 
religion  will  find  in  more  than  one  of  the  great 
movements  of  our  day.  We  can  ask  nothing 
better  for  the  Church  than  that  its  work  for 
the  Kingdom  of  God  should  be  done  in  the 
spirit  of  open-mindedness  which  characterizes 
the  scientist,  of  hopefulness  which  sustains  the 
educator,  and  of  respect  for  the  person  which  is 
the  dominating  feature  of '  present-day  philan¬ 
thropy.  We  may  even  find  in  social  manifesta¬ 
tions  whose  value  is  less  generally  accepted, 
traits  which  should  be  incorporated  in  our  con¬ 
ception  of  the  religion  of  democracy.  We  must 
not  neglect  the  manifestations  of  the  democratic 
spirit  in  industry.  Even  political  democracy, 
in  spite  of  its  faults,  may  have  something  to 
teach  us. 

In  studying  these  contemporary  illustrations 
of  the  democratic  spirit  we  ipust  not  forget  what 
was  said  at  the  outset  about  the  different  spheres 
in  which  this  spirit  may  find  expression.  It 
does  not  follow  because  a  man  is  a  democrat  in 
his  thinking  or  even  in  his  conduct,  that  he  will 
be  a  democrat  all  the  way  through.  Yet  even 
partial  manifestations  of  a  principle  may  be  in¬ 
structive,  and  by  their  contrast  to  other  ways 
of  thinking  and  feeling  help  us  to  understand 
what  democracy  at  its  best  may  become.1 

1  On  the  essential  unity  of  the  different  manifestations  of 
the  democratic  spirit,  cf.  Hobson,  Democracy  after  the  War, 
London,  1917,  p.  144  seq. 


158 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


Modern  science  gives  us  a  conspicuous  illustra¬ 
tion  of  the  democratic  attitude  in  the  realm  of 
thought.  In  science  many  men  are  working 
together  for  a  common  end  in  the  spirit  of  ex¬ 
pectancy  and  faith.  Scientists  believe  that  the 
human  mind  is  able  to  discover  the  truth.  But 
they  know  that  this  discovery  can  take  place 
only  if  the  mind  remains  sensitive  to  every  new 
impression.  No  previous  presupposition  must 
be  allowed  to  close  the  door  to  possible  alter¬ 
natives.  Any  theory  must  be  abandoned  if  new 
evidence  is  forthcoming.  The  independence  of 
the  reality  to  be  known  from  our  individual 
apprehension  of  it  is  one  of  the  basic  principles 
of  science.  But  the  scientist  knows  that  this 
reality  is  in  process  of  change.  No  previous 
observation,  therefore,  nor  any  number  of  ob¬ 
servations  can  exhaust  our  knowledge.  There 
will  never  come  a  time  when  we  can  say :  “  Now 
we  know  all  there  is  to  be  known.”  For  not  only 
have  we  not  yet  mastered  all  the  facts  now  to  be 
observed,  but  new  facts  are  constantly  emerging 
which  make  it  necessary  to  revise  our  previous 
hypotheses.  And  no  one  can  tell  beforehand 
where  these  facts  are  to  be  found,  or  what  they 
may  have  to  teach  us. 

In  this  attitude  there  is  a  moral  as  well  as 
an  intellectual  element.  We  have  referred  to 
William  James  as  a  man  who  restricted  his 
studies  in  religious  psychology  to  the  field  of  indi¬ 
vidualistic  religion.  But  in  the  character  of  his 
own  intellectual  life  he  was  a  conspicuous  illustra- 


DEMOCRATIC  RELIGION 


159 


tion  of  the  democratic  spirit  of  science.  No 
scientific  thinker  of  our  time  resisted  more  suc¬ 
cessfully  the  temptation  ~  to  intellectual  pride. 
There  was  no  form  of  human  experience  in  which 
he  was  not  interested,  no  humblest  representative 
of  living  piety  from  whom  he  was  not  willing  to 
learn.  The  fact  that  he  had  not  had  a  particular 
type  of  experience,  or  that  it  was  not  congenial 
to  him,  did  not  lead  him  to  question  its  divine 
origin  or  to  discount  its  present  significance. 
He  drew  wisdom  even  from  the  pathological. 
We  shall  find  few  more  consistent  examples  of 
the  democratic  spirit  in  the  realm  of  thought. 

With  an  apparently  endless  task  before  him, 
co-operation  offers  the  scientist  the  only  prospect 
of  ultimate  success.  No  one  can  see  all  that  is 
to  be  seen,  or  by  himself  command  the  conditions 
of  successful  experiment.  Therefore  we  must 
work  together.  In  all  the  lines  of  scientific 
research  an  elaborate  mechanism  of  co-opera¬ 
tion  has  been  established.  Great  laboratories 
assemble  multitudes  of  workers,  each  engaged 
upon  an  individual  task.  But  these  apparently 
independent  studies  are  parts  of  a  single  whole. 
They  converge  upon  a  common  aim,  and  only 
through  a  unification  of  all  the  different  results 
can  a  solution  be  reached  which  will  command 
general  assent. 

The  single  laboratory  is  typical  of  the  whole 
fellowship  of  men  of  science.  Out  of  their 
common  search  for  truth  in  receptivity  and 
sympathy  a  spirit  is  often  born  which  may 


160 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


rightly  be  described  as  religious.  This  spirit  at 
its  best  loses  all  thought  of  self  in  the  pursuit 
of  a  reality  greater  than  self,  and  in  the  pursuit 
finds  comradeship — a  comradeship  of  those  who 
in  the  same  faith  have  made  the  same  surrender. 
Science  in  its  ideal  is  the  worship  of  truth 
pursued  in  common.  It  is  the  intellectual  expres¬ 
sion  of  the  democratic  spirit  in  religion.1 

The  democratic  faith  which  inspires  the 
scientist  has  important  corollaries  for  education. 
Since  to  find  truth  requires  the  co-operation  of 
all,  no  one  can  be  neglected ;  and  since  every 
one  is  a  potential  person,  no  pupil  should  be 
despaired  of.  Not  all  people  have  the  same 
taste  or  the  same  capacities.  Not  all  pupils 
need  to  study  the  same  subject  or  in  the  same 

1  The  opportunity  afforded  for  the  widest  possible  fellowship 
is  one  of  the  attractions  of  science  to  generous  natures.  A 
noted  artist  once  surprised  his  friends  by  telling  them  that  he 
was  about  to  abandon  art  for  science.  “  I  can’t  stand  the  self¬ 
absorption  of  art,”  he  said,  “  the  insistence  on  the  individual 
point  of  view.  In  science  we  are  all  working  together.” 

No  doubt  in  saying  this  he  was  idealizing  science,  as  any  one 
of  us  might  do  when  dissatisfied  with  his  own  profession.  In 
practice  scientists  are  but  men  with  the  human  tendency  at * 
times  to  undervalue  or  ignore  the  work  of  others  and  to  exag¬ 
gerate  the  importance  of  one’s  own.  As  the  special  sciences 
become  institutionalized  and  command  vast  plants  of  their 
own,  this  tendency  is  accentuated.  It  is  easy  to  forget  the 
whole  in  the  parts,  man  in  the  thoughts  he  is  thinking.  One 
recalls  scientists  whose  attitude  to  plain  people  without  scientific 
training,  and  even  to  fellow-scientists,  is  more  like  that  of  a 
high  priest  of  imperialistic  religion  than  of  a  simple  democrat  ! 
But  such  men  are  the  exception,  not  the  rule.  The  true  scientist 
is  always  discovering  unsuspected  unities,  bringing  the  dis¬ 
connected  and  recalcitrant  fact  into  harmony  and  perspective, 
and  in  this  effort  he  is  glad  to  welcome  help  from  every  quarter. 


DEMOCRATIC  RELIGION 


161 


way.  But  they  have  certain  great  central 
interests  in  common — home,  country,  profession, 
religion.  These  central  interests  must  be  pursued 
together.  The  wise  teacher  never  allows  himself 
to  forget  that  he  is  dealing  with  beings  destined 
for  life  in  society  who  will  come  to  their  best 
selves  by  touching  other  lives.  Provision  is 
made,  therefore,  for  group  study.  Mind  must 
brush  up  against  mind  in  mutual  criticism ; 
mind  must  supplement  mind  in  mutual  helpful¬ 
ness.  Co-operative  experiment  plays  a  great 
role  in  the  new  education.  For  in  doing  things 
together,  and  comparing  the  experience  that 
results,  we  learn  to  distinguish  the  permanent 
realities,  significant  for  us  all,  from  the  transient 
interests  which  belong  to  us  as  individuals.  In 
all  this  we  can  detect  the  working  of  the  religious 
spirit.  Professor  Dewey,  indeed,  has  recently 
raised  the  question  whether  education  itself  may 
not  be  made  a  substitute  for  religion,1  and  while 
he  answers  this  question  in  the  negative,  he 
reminds  us  that  there  are  people  to-day  who  in 
good  faith  are  trying  to  make  it  one — people  who 
find  *  in  the  mysterious  power  revealed  in  the 
developing  personality  not  only  a  ceaseless 
subject  of  curiosity,  but  a  satisfying  object  of 
worship. 

This  vivid  consciousness  of  undeveloped  possi¬ 
bilities  in  man  is  the  moving  spirit  of  present- 
day  philanthropy.  The  Settlement  movement 

1  In  an  article  in  the  New  Republic  entitled  “  Education  as 
Religion.” 


162 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


formulated  a  new  social  philosophy,  the  con¬ 
ception  that  reciprocal  friendship,  in  the  familiar 
form  in  which  we  know  it  in  our  families  and 
in  our  clubs,  may  be  extended  to  cover  all  human 
relationships.  The  founders  of  the  first  Settle¬ 
ments  were  interested  in  people  as  such,  all  kinds 
of  people.  Those  who  had  fuller  lives  shared 
what  they  had  with  those  whose  lives  had  been 
less  fortunate.  They  did  this  as  learners  as  well 
as  teachers.  They  expected  to  receive  as  well 
as  to  give.  This  spirit  animates  the  whole  of 
the  newer  philanthropy.  Since  our  ideal  for 
each  individual  is  that  he  should  be  both  giver 
and  receiver,  we  are  more  interested  in  keeping 
people  well  than  in  curing  them  when  they  are 
sick ;  in  furnishing  them  with  work,  than  in 
supporting  them  when  unemployed ;  in  keeping 
them  out  of  prison,  than  in  keeping  them  in. 
If  they  must  go  to  prison,  then  let  us  see  to  it 
that  they  are  so  treated  while  there  that  they 
will  never  find  their  way  back,  and  let  us  believe 
that  this  is  possible.  Thomas  Osborne  was  a 
conspicuous  exponent  of  the  democratic  spirit 
when  he  started  his  society  for  mutual  improve¬ 
ment  among  the  prisoners  in  Sing-Sing.  There 
is  a  Japanese  Christian  in  Tokyo  to-day  who  is 
running  a  great  prison  in  that  city  on  Osborne's 
principles,  and  proving  that  they  are  practicable 
in  Japan  as  well  as  in  the  United  States. 

The  democratic  spirit  shown  by  educators 
and  social  workers  in  their  attitude  toward  indi¬ 
viduals  may  be  illustrated  on  a  larger  scale  in 


DEMOCRATIC  RELIGION 


163 


recent  movements  in  industry  and  in  politics. 
Two  great  forces  are  competing  for  the  control 
of  modern  business — imperialism  and  democracy. 
Socialism  in  its  more  thoroughgoing  forms  is 
only  a  different  name  for  imperialism.  There 
are  forms  of  the  trades  union  movement  which 
are  little  better.  They  are  fighting  organizations, 
subordinating  all  to  the  battle  against  capital, 
and  ruthlessly  suppressing  individual  variation 
in  every  form.  These  manifestations  of  the 
fighting  spirit  in  labour,  inevitable  as  they  seem, 
give  capital  its  chance.  They  perpetuate  the 
class  conflict  in  industry,  and  parallel  in  striking 
ways  the  strife  of  the  sects  in  religion.  But 
there  is  another  and  a  better  spirit  abroad  in 
industry — a  co-operative  rather  than  a  com¬ 
petitive  spirit.  The  exponents  of  this  spirit  are 
often  called  socialists,  and  they  agree  with  the 
socialists  in  criticizing  the  present  social  order 
as  ineffective  and  un-Christian.  But  the  phil¬ 
osophy  which  they  hold,  unlike  that  of  the 
orthodox  socialists,  is  democratic  rather  than 
imperialistic.  They  believe  in  conference  and 
experiment.  They  preach  the  doctrine  of  mutual 
understanding.  They  do  not  believe  that  the 
working  man  with  his  present  equipment  is 
competent  to  run  industry  by  himself,  but  they 
believe  that  he  may  train  himself  to  become 
competent,  and  that  even  now  there  are  phases 
of  industry  about  which  he  may  have  something 
to  teach  his  employer.  The  men  who  hold  this 
new  conception  of  industry  as  a  co-operative 


164 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


enterprise  wish  to  extend  its  application  to 
society  as  a  whole.  Our  present  methods  both 
of  production  and  of  distribution  seem  to  them 
so  stupid  and  wasteful,  that  a  radical  reorganiza¬ 
tion  of  our  social  and  economic  system  is  not 
only  desirable,  but  practicable.  But  such  a  re¬ 
organization,  if  it  is  to  be  permanently  beneficial, 
must  be  brought  about  by  peaceable  methods, 
and  must  command  the  intelligent  support  of 
those  who  live  under  it.  Working  men  are 
urged,  therefore,  to  study  and  to  organize,  but 
they  are  not  told  to  regard  men  of  other  classes 
as  enemies.  Since  all  are  victims  of  a  bad  social 
system,  the  co-operation  of  all  is  needed  to 
change  it. 

In  his  remarkable  book,  The  Sickness  of  an 
Acquisitive  Society ,x  Professor  R.  H.  Tawney 
has  expressed  the  faith  which  inspires  this  new 
spirit  in  industry.  It  is  the  faith  of  democratic 
religion.  Professor  Tawney  does  not  think  that 
selfishness  is  the  only  power  strong  enough 
to  make  men  work.  He  gives  reasons  for  be¬ 
lieving  that  the  pleasure  which  men  take  in  good 
work  may  be  itself  a  sufficient  motive,  and,  above 
all,  the  consciousness  of  deserving  well  of  their 
fellow-men.  He  condemns  the  present  industrial 
system  as  wasteful  and  inefficient  most  of  all 
because  it  has  not  yet  appealed  to  the  nobler 
impulses  in  man  or  released  his  spiritual  re¬ 
sources.  In  a  word,  Tawney  believes  that  it  is 
possible  to  carry  the  religious  spirit  into  industry. 

1  London,  1920. 


DEMOCRATIC  RELIGION 


165 


The  faith  that  inspires  Professor  Tawney's 
book  found  striking  political  expression  some 
years  ago  in  a  widely  read  pronouncement  of 
the  English  Labour  party.1  In  this  carefully 
prepared  document  the  particular  measures 
proposed  are  based  on  an  underlying  conception 
of  human  relationships  which  assumes  that  co¬ 
operation  rather  than  competition  should  be 
the  law  of  life  in  society,  and  that  peace  rather 
than  war  should  determine  the  policy  of  nations. 
While  the  subject-matter  treated  is  economic 
and  political,  and  the  measures  proposed  were 
meant  to  define  a  party  platform,  the  ideal 
expressed  is  independent  of  the  changes  of  con¬ 
temporary  politics,  and  concerns  itself  with 
perennial  realities  of  the  spirit.  We  shall  not 
be  wrong  if  we  regard  it  as  an  expression  of  the 
religious  spirit  in  politics. 

All  these  movements  are  phases  of  a  single 
movement,  and  derive  their  inspiration  from  a 
common  source.  They  are  religious  in  that  their 
representatives  derive  the  ultimate  motive  for 
their  activity  from  the  common  recognition  of  a 
spiritual  reality  superior  to  the  individual  and 
determinative  of  his  ideals  —  truth,  beauty, 
goodness,  fellowship,  as  the  case  may  be.  They 
are  democratic  since  they  find  in  the  common 
recognition  of  this  reality,  and  in  the  common 
practice  of  the  principles  which  follow  from  it, 
a  bond  of  union  with  men  and  women  of  every 

1  “  Labour  and  the  New  Social  Order,”  a  report  on  Recon¬ 
struction,  reprinted  in  the  New  Republic ,  February  1 6,  1919. 


166 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


race  and  class.  For  this  reason  a  study  of  these 
movements  is  an  indispensable  prerequisite  to 
an  understanding  of  democratic  religion  in  the 
more  conventional  form  in  which  it  meets  us  in 
the  Churches.1 

5.  Illustrations  of  Democratic  Religion  within  the 
Churches.  The  New  Theology.  The  En¬ 
larging  Conception  of  Christian  Missions. 
The  Movement  for  Christian  Unity 

With  this  background  in  mind  we  come  back 
to  the  Churches,  and  find  that  the  democratic 
spirit  is  at  work  in  them.  Even  in  the  older 
Churches,  it  was  present,  though  hampered  and 
limited  in  the  ways  we  have  described.  But  in 
the  modern  Church  the  democratic  spirit  is 
beginning  to  develop  its  full  implications,  and 
to  create  appropriate  organs  for  its  expression. 
Among  the  most  important  influences  which 
have  contributed  to  this  result  may  be  men¬ 
tioned  the  application  of  scientific  methods  to 
theology,  the  enlarging  conception  of  the  Church's 
missionary  responsibility,  and  the  movement  for 
Christian  unity.  Before  we  sum  up  our  con- 

1  Theologians  of  every  school  have  insisted  that  the  revealed 
religion  preserved  in  the  Churches  presupposes  and  comple¬ 
ments  a  more  inclusive  natural  religion.  They  make  place, 
therefore,  in  their  text-books  for  the  doctrines  of  natural,  as 
well  as  of  revealed,  theology.  If  this  be  true  of  imperialist  and 
sectarian  theologians,  how  much  more  eager  ought  democratic 
teachers  to  be  to  lay  the  widest  possible  foundation  for  the 
religion  of  democracy  in  familiar  human  experiences  often 
characterized  as  secular. 


DEMOCRATIC  RELIGION 


167 


elusions  and  try  to  estimate  the  value  of  demo¬ 
cratic  religion,  let  us  take  a  final  look  at  the 
Churches  under  the  play  of  these  influences. 

By  the  New  Theology  we  do  not  mean  to 
describe  any  particular  set  of  beliefs,  but  rather 
the  new  attitude  which  results  from  the  applica¬ 
tion  of  the  scientific  spirit  to  religion.  The 
scientific  study  of  religion  lifts  us  out  of  our 
narrow  environment  and  brings  us  face  to  face 
with  the  fact  of  variation.  The  scientist  not 
only  recognizes  variation  as  a  fact.  He  attempts 
to  understand  the  reasons  for  it.  He  enters 
sympathetically  into  different  points  of  view. 
He  tries  to  see  things  with  other  men's  eyes,  and 
to  measure  values  by  their  standards.  He  has 
broken  once  and  for  all  with  the  ideal  of  uni¬ 
formity.  He  thinks  of  the  world  as  not  only 
made  but  making.  This  conception  of  develop¬ 
ment  which  has  proved  so  fruitful  in  other  realms 
he  carries  over  into  the  field  of  religion.  He 
reads  the  Bible  as  the  story  of  man's  progressive 
apprehension  of  the  divine.  In  its  pages  he 
sees  many  different  minds  reacting  in  many 
different  ways  to  the  message  of  the  same  God. 
Instead  of  a  single  revelation  in  the  past,  com¬ 
pleted  once  for  all,  he  finds  God  continually 
revealing  Himself,  and  he  sets  no  limits  to  what 
may  be  disclosed  in  the  future. 

One  need  not  exaggerate  the  part  which 
science  has  played  in  preparing  the  way  for  demo¬ 
cratic  religion.  There  are  religious  teachers  who 
would  persuade  us  that  the  only  trouble  with  the 


168 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


world  to-day  is  that  it  has  not  yet  accepted  the 
new  theology.  Without  going  as  far  as  this,  we 
may  believe  that  the  new  theology  represents 
a  real  step  forward  ;  that  it  makes  possible  a 
clearer  apprehension  of  the  way  in  which  God 
has  actually  been  dealing  with  men  than  any 
theology  which  has  preceded  it.  But  our  present 
concern  is  not  with  its  intellectual  achievements, 
but  with  its  spiritual  attitude.  As  a  method  of 
approach  to  the  problems  of  religion  it  is  peculiarly 
congenial  to  the  democratic  spirit,  because  it 
makes  possible  the  fullest  co-operation  in  religion. 
It  breaks  down  the  barriers  between  men  of 
different  Churches  and  different  schools.  To-day 
we  look  for  agreement  in  principles  rather  than  in 
results,  in  spirit  rather  than  in  dogma.  Scholars  of 
different  Communions,  approaching  their  common 
problems  in  this  new  spirit  have  discovered  un¬ 
suspected  sympathies  with  men  of  other  names, 
and  of  different  historic  antecedents.  They  have 
translated  fellowship  from  theory  into  fact. 

A  second  influence  which  has  promoted  the 
democratic  spirit  in  Protestantism  has  been 
modern  missions.  We  have  seen  that  the  mission¬ 
ary  spirit  was  slow  in  coming  to  its  own  in 
Protestantism.  But  when  once  the  new  ideal 
was  embraced,  it  carried  with  it  momentous  con¬ 
sequences.  The  first  missionaries  did  not  at  all 
realize  when  they  started  out  on  their  quixotic 
enterprise  that  they  were  transforming  Protest¬ 
antism  from  the  religion  of  a  group  of  sects 
into  a  world-religion.  At  first  they  had  no  other 


DEMOCRATIC  RELIGION 


169 


thought  than  to  save  individual  souls,  as  many  as 
they  could.  But  little  by  little  they  came  to 
see  that  to  save  the  individual  they  must  change 
his  environment  also.  So  they  became  students 
of  the  countries  to  which  they  came.  They 
studied  their  institutions,  their  literature,  their 
art,  their  social  customs.  They  entered  sym¬ 
pathetically  into  the  study  of  their  religions. 
And  slowly  it  dawned  on  them  that  here,  too, 
God  had  been  at  work.  Confucianism,  Buddhism, 
even  Islam,  are  not  purely  human  inventions, 
They  are  ways  in  which  God  has  been  preparing 
His  children  for  a  fuller  revelation  in  Jesus 
Christ. 

Insensibly  the  purpose  of  the  missionaries 
was  modified.  They  no  longer  aimed  to  transfer 
Western  Christianity  unchanged  to  the  East, 
still  less  to  impose  Western  institutions  upon 
people  to  whom  they  were  not  congenial.  They 
realized  that  they  were  sent  to  help  other  children 
of  the  common  Father  to  their  own  interpretation 
of  the  world's  Christ. 

The  counterpart  at  home  of  the  new  spirit 
in  foreign  missions  is  what  we  are  accustomed 
to  call  the  Social  Gospel.  Revolutionary  and 
inspiring  as  it  is,  it  is  perhaps  too  familiar  to  need 
description  here.  Enough  to  say  that  it  is  the 
attempt  to  apply  the  principles  of  Jesus  Christ 
consistently  to  all  the  different  aspects  of  our 
social,  economic,  and  political  life.  Modern  Chris¬ 
tians  make  no  less  of  the  individual.  They  are 
as  strongly  convinced  as  ever  of  the  necessity 


170 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


of  personal  salvation.  But  they  have  come  to 
see  that  the  person  to  be  saved  is  the  person  in 
his  environment,  father,  husband,  teacher,  em¬ 
ployer,  politician,  labour-leader,  lawyer,  patriot. 
You  cannot  change  the  individual  without  alter¬ 
ing  his  standards  all  along  the  line.  Men  cannot 
pray  “  Thy  Kingdom  come/'  without  com¬ 
mitting  themselves  to  the  task  of  doing  God’s 
will  on  earth  as  it  is  done  in  heaven.  The  Social 
Gospel  is  our  attempt  to  define  what  this  means 
for  us  to-day.  It  is  the  consistent  expression 
of  the  democratic  spirit  in  religion. 

A  third  influence  through  which  the  demo¬ 
cratic  spirit  finds  expression  in  the  Church  life  of 
to-day  is  the  movement  for  Christian  unity.  By 
this  we  do  not  mean  simply  or  even  chiefly  the 
efforts  that  are  being  made  to  bring  about  organic 
union,  technically  so  called.  We  refer  to  the 
movement  for  closer  co  -  operation  between 
Christians  in  all  its  varying  phases.  Christian 
people  are  becoming  conscious  of  the  fact  that 
the  different  communions  are  not  only  parts  of 
one  all-embracing  Church,  but  that  they  have 
each  something  to  contribute  to  its  enrichment. 
They  are  therefore  eager  to  find  appropriate 
forms  through  which  the  many-sided  life  may 
find  united  expression. 

In  their  notable  pronouncement  on  Christian 
unity  at  the  recent  Lambeth  Conference  the 
Bishops  abandon  once  and  for  all  the  ideal  of 
uniformity  in  religion.  They  recognize  that 
there  are  many  different  channels  through  which 


DEMOCRATIC  RELIGION 


171 


the  grace  of  Christ  may  flow  and  that  He  has 
in  fact  spoken  to  men  by  many  different  voices. 
They  do  not  ask  the  repudiation  of  any  form  of 
the  Spirit's  ministry.  They  would  not  have  any 
one  of  these  different  experiences  excluded  from 
the  larger  Church.  They  wish  a  Church  in 
which  all  the  members  of  Christ's  flock  may  feel 
equally  at  home,  however  many  the  folds  in 
which  they  have  hitherto  been  shepherded. 
What  is  this,  but  the  expression  of  the  demo¬ 
cratic  spirit  in  religion  ? 

But  Lambeth  was  a  symptom  rather  than  a 
cause.  It  was  only  the  public  expression  of  a 
spirit  which  has  long  been  at  work  in  Protest¬ 
antism,  and  which  has  only  failed  of  the  recogni¬ 
tion  it  deserves  because  of  its  lack  of  consistent 
institutional  expression.  Considered  as  a  form 
of  organization ,  the  Presbyterianism  of  to-day  is 
simply  the  continuation  and  development  of  the 
Presbyterianism  of  Calvin  and  of  Knox.  The 
same  is  true  of  each  of  the  other  main  divisions 
of  Protestantism.  But  the  attitude  which  the 
Presbyterian  of  to-day  takes  toward  his  fellow- 
Christians  of  different  communions  has  under¬ 
gone  a  revolutionary  alteration.  The  older 
Protestantism  was  sectarian,  in  the  technical 
sense  of  that  word.  Each  group  thought  that  it 
possessed  the  full  truth  of  God  and  tried  to 
impose  that  truth  upon  its  neighbours.  Whether 
a  man  was  a  Presbyterian  or  a  Baptist  or  an 
Episcopalian  he  insisted  that  he  was  so  jure 
divino.  But  to-day  we  grant  to  other  Christians 


172 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


the  liberty  we  claim  for  ourselves,  and  recognize 
that  in  their  differing  approach  to  the  Gospel  of 
our  common  Master  they  have  found  something 
from  which  we  may  learn.  Modern  Protestantism 
is  still  far  from  realizing  the  democratic  ideal  in 
religion.  But  what  we  most  lack  to-day  is  not 
so  much  the  democratic  spirit  as  institutions 
capable  of  giving  that  spirit  adequate  training 
and  expression. 

6.  The  Institutional  Expression  of  Democratic 

Religion 

Democratic  institutions  must  safeguard  at 
least  three  permanent  interests.  They  must 
provide  for  unity  in  ways  that  are  consistent 
with  freedom.  They  must  admit  variety  without 
sacrificing  unity.  They  must  make  room  for 
progress  without  imperilling  either  unity  or 
liberty. 

In  the  first  place  we  must  find  some  way  in 
which  all  the  different  individuals  who  make  up 
democratic  society  may  contribute  to  the  common 
life,  and  may  have  some  share  in  determining 
the  policy  of  the  whole.  In  small  communities 
this  can  easily  be  done  by  mutual  contact  and 
conference.  Over  larger  areas  the  direct  method 
proves  impossible.  The  device  which  democratic 
societies  have  adopted  for  overcoming  this  diffi¬ 
culty  is  the  principle  of  representation.  What  I 
cannot  do  directly,  I  may  do  through  a  delegate 
of  my  own  choosing.  And  if  our  needs  and 


DEMOCRATIC  RELIGION 


173 


interests  were  the  same,  and  the  men  we  chose 
were  true  to  their  trust,  this  would  be  an  adequate 
solution  of  the  difficulty. 

But  as  a  matter  of  fact  this  is  not  the  case. 
In  democratic  society,  as  in  every  other,  there 
are  differences  of  need  and  interest  to  which 
no  central  government  however  honest  or  com¬ 
petent  can  give  adequate  attention.  To  deal 
with  these  efficiently  we  must  have  smaller  units 
with  responsibilities  and  powers  of  their  own. 
The  unit  of  division  may  be  geographical,  like 
the  community  or  the  State,  or  it  may  be 
functional,  like  the  occupation  or  the  interest. 
The  problem  then  arises  how  these  different 
groups  are  to  be  united,  and  what  provision  shall 
be  made  for  the  common  interests  which  all 
alike  share  ?  This  need  is  met  by  the  principle 
of  federation.  A  federation  is  a  form  of  govern¬ 
ment  which  makes  it  possible  for  groups  to 
retain  their  own  independence  and  initiative 
within  certain  defined  spheres,  while  they  delegate 
power  to  a  central  organization  to  act  for  them 
in  matters  of  common  interest.  A  federal  State 
makes  use  simultaneously  of  two  different 
methods  of  administration.  It  has  an  organiza¬ 
tion  to  express  the  interests  which  all  its  members 
share ;  it  has  other  agencies  to  express  the 
interests  in  which  its  members  differ.  It  is  true 
that  our  existing  federations  still  leave  much  to 
be  desired,  both  in  State  and  in  Church.  As  yet 
we  are  only  in  the  stage  of  experiment,  but  there 
is  little  doubt  that  the  method  is  a  sound  one, 


174 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


and  that  it  is  capable  of  new  and  far  more 
effective  application. 

But  neither  representation  nor  federation 
will  accomplish  what  is  asked  of  them  if  any 
existing  form  is  regarded  as  a  finality.  Since 
democratic  institutions  must  give  expression 
to  a  growing  and  developing  life,  they  cannot 
be  rigid  or  unchanging.  They  must  contain 
within  themselves  provision  for  self-improve¬ 
ment.  For  this  a  foundation  must  be  laid  in 
a  comprehensive  system  of  popular  education. 
Boys  and  girls  need  to  know  more  than  how 
to  read  and  write.  Even  the  best  possible 
vocational  training  is  not  enough.  Our  future 
citizens  must  be  taught  to  see  their  special  tasks 
as  parts  of  a  larger  whole.  They  must  be  helped 
to  realize  their  personal  responsibility  for  making 
a  success  of  the  great  co-operative  experiment 
we  call  democratic  society.  This  conviction 
underlies  our  belief  in  universal  popular  educa¬ 
tion,  however  far  in  practice  we  may  be  from 
realizing  our  ideal. 

It  is  obvious  that  to  provide  institutions 
which  shall  be  adequate  to  the  needs  of  a  truly 
democratic  society  all  three  of  these  principles 
must  be  applied  simultaneously,  and  each  with 
due  regard  to  the  operation  of  the  others.  Un¬ 
fortunately  this  has  nowhere  been  done.  The 
institutions  of  society  have  nowhere  been  con¬ 
sistently  shaped  according  to  democratic  ideals, 
but  represent  compromises,  more  or  less  conscious, 
with  other  types  of  social  philosophy.  The 


DEMOCRATIC  RELIGION 


175 


principle  of  representation  has  been  most  gener¬ 
ally  adopted.  But  it  has  been  accompanied 
by  no  corresponding  education  in  the  principles 
which  should  govern  the  vote,  and  with  the 
principle  of  federation,  with  a  few  notable  ex¬ 
ceptions,  we  are  just  beginning  to  experiment. 

What  is  more  important,  we  have  not  realized 
that  in  our  experiments  with  democratic  govern¬ 
ment  we  have  begun  at  the  wrong  end.  We 
have  put  political  democracy  first,  which  is  the 
most  difficult  of  all  forms  of  government,  while 
in  our  industry  and  in  our  religion  we  have  left  a 
free  field  for  the  strife  of  imperialism  and  in¬ 
dividualism.  But  it  is  in  connection  with  the 
things  which  lie  nearest  at  hand,  our  work  and 
our  worship,  that  we  must  begin  our  experiments 
with  democracy  if  we  are  to  hope  for  success. 

One  reason  for  this  failure  has  been  the  lack 
until  recent  years  of  a  true  conception  of  educa¬ 
tion.  We  have  thought  of  education  as  dealing 
with  special  studies  apart  from  and  in  addition 
to  the  work  to  be  done  in  factory  or  in  business. 
We  have  thought  of  it  at  most  as  training  the 
individual  for  his  own  particular  trade  or  interest. 
We  have  not  conceived  it  as  the  means  through 
which  to  interpret  to  the  members  of  the  rising 
generation,  whatever  their  particular  business 
may  be,  the  life  which  as  free  citizens  they  are  to 
live  together. 

What  is  true  within  each  nation  is  true  a 
fortiori  of  the  different  nations.  We  suffer  to-day 
in  the  field  of  international  relations  because  we 


176 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


have  as  yet  devised  no  institutions  through  which 
the  free  spirit,  present  to  a  greater  or  less  degree 
in  all  the  different  nations,  may  find  a  common 
vehicle  of  expression. 

Nevertheless  real  progress  is  being  made. 
In  industry,  as  we  have  seen,  the  democratic 
spirit  is  at  last  working  out  institutions  for  its 
expression.  All  the  principles  to  which  we  have 
referred,  the  principle  of  representation,  the 
principle  of  federation,  the  principle  of  universal 
education,  are  being  applied  in  modern  industry 
on  a  constantly  increasing  scale.  A  body  of 
experience  is  being  acquired  which  is  bound  to 
exert,  indeed  which  is  already  exerting,  a  reflex 
influence  in  political  and  in  more  narrowly 
educational  circles.  From  many  different  centres 
influences  are  at  work  which  need  only  to  be 
co-ordinated  and  guided  to  provide  the  founda¬ 
tion  for  a  truly  democratic  organization  of  society. 

What  is  going  on  in  industry,  in  politics, 
and  in  education  is  going  on  also  in  the  Church. 
In  many  different  ways  the  different  Christian 
bodies,  dissatisfied  with  their  present  divisions, 
are  working  out  forms  appropriate  to  demo¬ 
cratic  religion.  In  the  local  community,  in  the 
missionary  and  educational  work  of  the  Churches, 
between  the  different  denominations  as  a  whole, 
various  forms  of  union  are  being  devised.  Com¬ 
munity  Churches  are  being  formed,  Federations 
of  Churches  are  being  set  up,  nation-wide  Federal 
Councils  are  being  established.  Plans  are  being 
made  for  extensive  co-operation  in  the  field  of 


DEMOCRATIC  RELIGION 


177 


religious  education.1  What  the  end  is  to  be,  we 
cannot  yet  foresee.  But  we  shall  fail  to  read 
the  signs  of  the  times  if  we  do  not  perceive  that 
in  these  new  experiments  the  democratic  Church 
of  the  future  is  feeling  its  way  to  a  more  complete 
and  adequate  self-expression. 

What  this  Church  is  to  be  like,  only  the  future 
can  reveal.  But  it  is  possible  even  now  to  sketch 
the  broad  lines  which  the  development  must 
follow. 

For  one  thing,  it  will  be  a  Church.  Whatever 
else  the  religion  of  democracy  may  be,  it  will  be 
religion.  Now,  as  in  every  age,  the  hunger  of  the 
soul  is  for  God,  and  those  institutions  only  can 
hope  to  survive  which  can  satisfy  this  hunger. 
Worship,  then,  will  be  central  in  the  Church  of 
the  future — the  worship  of  the  one  Father  by 
His  many  children. 

Again,  the  Church  of  the  future  will  be  a  free 
Church.  It  will  have  but  one  way  of  maintaining 
its  unity,  and  that  is  through  the  agreement  of 
its  members  in  conviction  and  in  experience. 
These  open-minded  Christians  will  be  reverent 
of  the  past,  and  ready  to  learn  all  that  it  can 
teach,  but  chiefly  for  this  reason,  that  the  study 
of  the  past  will  make  possible  new  creative  ex¬ 
periences,  present  and  future. 

Above  all,  it  will  be  a  developing  Church. 
It  will  not  only  leave  room  for  wide  variety  in 
its  forms  of  worship  and  methods  of  activity, 

1  For  the  details  of  this  movement  in  the  United  States,  cf. 
the  author’s  work,  The  Church  in  America ,  New  York,  1922. 


178 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


but  it  will  be  constantly  revising  these  forms 
and  methods  in  the  light  of  new  experience. 
The  members  of  this  developing  Church  will  never 
regard  their  work  as  finished.  They  will  always 
be  trying  new  experiments.  They  will  be  continu¬ 
ally  comparing  experiences  in  the  hope  of  finding 
some  better  way.  Conscious  of  serving  the  living 
God,  their  faces  will  be  turned  to  the  future ; 
they  will  set  no  limits  to  their  expectation. 

More  than  this  it  is  not  possible  to  say.  How 
this  new  Church  will  be  organized,  how  it  will 
function,  will  be  determined  by  those  who  come 
after  us.  We  may  hazard  the  conjecture  that 
it  will  make  much  larger  use  than  we  have  done 
of  the  principle  of  federation.  For  federation  is 
of  all  forms  of  government  that  which  has  faced 
most  completely  the  problem  of  unity  in  variety. 
Of  this  we  may  be  confident,  that  whatever  form 
the  future  organization  of  the  Church  may  take, 
it  will  conserve  the  best  in  the  experience  of  the 
past,  and  make  place  in  the  present  and  the  future 
for  that  free  co-operative  experiment  which  we 
have  seen  to  be  the  life-breath  of  democratic 
religion. 


CHAPTER  VI 


THE  UNIFYING  PRINCIPLE  IN  RELIGION 

i.  Review  of  the  Ground  traversed .  The  Resulting 
Questions  (a)  as  to  Personal  Responsibility , 
(b)  as  to  Attitude  toward  Others 


WE  have  studied  three  typical  forms  of 
religion  —  imperialism,  individualism, 
and  democracy — and  we  have  tried  to 
find  out  wherein  they  differ. 

It  may  be  asked,  How  does  this  help  us  ? 
We  were  led  to  undertake  our  study  in  the 
hope  that  we  might  find  some  principle  which 
would  not  only  clarify  our  thinking,  but  would* 
help  us  to  act  more  effectively.  It  would 
seem  that  we  have  simply  added  to  our 
existing  causes  of  perplexity  a  further  divisive 
element. 

Even  if  this  should  prove  to  be  the  fact,  it 
will  have  been  worth  while  to  make  the  study. 
It  is  futile  to  try  to  persuade  ourselves  that  life 
is  simpler  than  it  really  is.  If  men  differ  in  the 
ways  we  have  described,  it  is  important  for  us 
to  know  it.  Whether  we  realize  it  or  not,  to  one 
or  other  of  these  three  types  we  belong  or  to 


179 


180 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


some  one  of  the  possible  combinations  between 
them.  If  this  be  so,  let  us  recognize  the  fact 
and  be  able  to  give  a  reason  for  our  position.  It 
may  be  that  in  clarifying  our  thinking  about 
our  own  type  of  religion,  we  shall  discern  more 
clearly  what  ought  to  be  our  attitude  toward 
men  of  other  types. 

We  began,  it  will  be  remembered,  by  calling 
attention  to  the  problem  of  variation  in  religion. 
If  religion  be  the  all-important  thing  religious 
people  agree  that  it  is,  why  should  they  differ 
so  widely  as  to  its  nature  ?  This  fact  of  difference 
meets  us  wherever  we  turn.  Not  only  do  the 
great  religions  differ  from  one  another,  but  they 
differ  within  themselves.  They  differ  in  organiza¬ 
tion.  They  differ  in  belief.  They  differ  in  senti¬ 
ment.  And  in  many  cases  these  differences  are 
so  deep-seated  and  persistent  as  to  prevent  all 
personal  intercourse.  How  comes  it  that  the 
adherents  of  the  same  religion  are  unwilling  to 
meet  at  the  same  table  or  to  worship  in  the  same 
church  ? 

We  recalled  some  of  the  more  important 
historic  explanations.  We  tested  the  theory 
which  contrasts  a  particular  type  of  religion  as 
true  with  all  others  as  false.  We  considered  the 
explanation  which  finds  the  key  to  the  differences 
of  the  historic  religions  in  their  contribution  to 
the  development  of  religion  as  a  whole.  We 
found  that  neither  of  these  explanations  alone 
can  account  for  all  the  facts.  In  all  the  historic 
religions,  and  through  all  the  different  stages  in 


THE  UNIFYING  PRINCIPLE  IN  RELIGION  181 


the  development  of  each  religion,  we  discovered 
the  presence  of  certain  persistent  parallel  types 
which  we  called  imperialism,  individualism,  and 
democracy.  By  imperialism  we  agreed  to  under¬ 
stand  a  type  of  religion  whose  representatives 
believe  that  they  serve  God  most  acceptably 
when  they  submit  to  the  control  of  some  existing 
institution,  the  supremacy  of  which  in  the  world 
they  identify  with  the  triumph  of  God's  will. 
By  individualism  we  agreed  to  understand  a 
type  of  religion  whose  representatives  despair  of 
satisfaction  through  any  existing  institution,  and 
find  solace  in  immediate  communion  between 
the  individual  soul  and  God.  By  democracy  we 
understood  a  type  of  religion  whose  representa¬ 
tives  are  convinced  that  they  serve  God  best 
when  they  discover  His  presence  in  other  persons, 
and  unite  with  them  in  the  progressive  realization 
of  the  ideal  social  order  which  it  is  God's  purpose 
to  establish  on  earth  through  the  free  co-opera¬ 
tion  of  men. 

We  saw  that  these  contrasted  types  cannot 
be  completely  identified  with  any  existing  form 
of  historic  religion.  Institutions  are  compromises 
between  different  points  of  view.  Every  Church 
includes  people  who  belong  to  each  of  our  three 
types.  We  may  go  further  and  say  that  no 
individual  is  perfectly  consistent  in  his  religious 
life.  Like  the  larger  groups  to  which  we  belong, 
each  one  of  us  is  a  living  compromise,  responding 
from  time  to  time  to  differing  and  often  in¬ 
consistent  stimuli.  There  is  something  of  the 


182 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


imperialist  in  each  one  of  us,  something  of  the 
individualist,  something  of  the  democrat.  It  is 
only  in  hours  of  crisis,  when  the  choice  must  be 
made,  that  we  learn  to  which  competing  rival  our 
major  allegiance  is  given. 

This  constant  shifting  of  emphasis  gives  the 
study  of  history  its  fascination.  As  in  nature 
new  variations  are  constantly  appearing  which 
are  the  result  of  cross-breeding,  so  in  man.  At 
some  of  these  variant  types  we  have  already 
glanced  in  passing.  The  religion  of  the  sect  is 
such  a  type.  It  owes  its  origin  to  the  marriage 
of  individualism  and  imperialism.  The  spiritual 
religion  of  the  Friends  is  a  similar  variant.  But 
the  parents  in  this  case  are  individualism  and 
democracy.  The  Friends  carry  the  rejection  of 
forms  to  an  extreme  which  no  individualist  can 
surpass,  yet  they  associate  it  with  a  social  passion 
which  has  made  them  the  leaven  of  our  modern 
world.  Into  these  interesting  bypaths  we  have 
not  tried  to  enter.  We  have  been  content  to 
point  out  that  the  three  great  types  which 
we  have  been  contrasting  are  persistent  types, 
and  that  the  recognition  of  their  existence 
is  essential  to  the  understanding  of  the  prob¬ 
lems  of  present-day  religion.  How  does  this 
conclusion  help  us  to  understand  our  own 
religious  life  ?  What  light  does  it  shed  upon 
the  attitude  we  should  take  toward  those  who 
differ  from  us  ? 


THE  UNIFYING  PRINCIPLE  IN  RELIGION  183 


2.  Tradition,  Intuition,  and  Experiment  as  Influ¬ 
ences  determining  Personal  Faith.  Different 
Use  made  of  these  by  Imperialist,  Individ¬ 
ualist,  and  Democrat.  Place  of  the  Creative 
Experience  in  each 

Clearly  our  first  question  concerns  our  own 
individual  responsibility.  What  is  to  be  our 
personal  attitude  toward  the  three  types  we 
have  distinguished?  Shall  we  be  imperialists, 
individualists,  or  democrats,  or  shall  we  follow 
some  one  of  the  possible  intermediate  paths  ? 
Or,  if  we  find — as  in  ninety-nine  cases  out  of  a 
hundred  we  shall  find — that  the  decision  has 
been  made  already,  how  shall  we  justify  our 
choice  ? 

On  any  level  of  life,  this  is  a  momentous 
matter,  but  for  the  religious  man  it  is  difficult 
to  overestimate  its  importance.  In  religion 
we  are  dealing  with  the  ultimate  reality.  The 
question  is  not  simply  how  we  shall  relate  our¬ 
selves  to  our  fellow-men,  but  how  we  shall  relate 
ourselves  to  God.  Which  road  will  conduct  us 
most  directly  into  His  presence  ?  And  what 
shall  we  find  when  we  are  there  ? 

Only  experience  can  give  us  our  complete 
answer,  and  this  is  true  whatever  path  we  take. 
There  is  a  story  by  O.  Henry  called  Roads  of 
Destiny,  in  which  a  young  traveller  comes  to  a 
place  where  three  roads  meet.  He  must  choose 
which  of  the  three  he  will  follow.  When  the  road 
first  chosen  has  been  traversed,  the  author  brings 


184 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


his  hero  back  to  the  starting-point,  and  lets  him 
take  the  second  road,  and  then  the  third.  The 
point  of  the  story  lies  in  the  fact  that  at  the  end 
of  every  road  he  meets  the  same  destiny. 

I  am  not  sure  but  that,  taken  as  a  parable 
of  life,  the  end  of  this  story  is  truer  than  its 
beginning.  When  it  comes  to  our  ultimate 
decisions,  conscious  choice  plays  a  much  smaller 
role  than  our  text-books  of  morals  would  have 
us  believe.  For  most  of  us  the  main  path  is 
determined  from  the  start  by  circumstances  over 
which  we  have  no  control.  It  is  the  little  choices 
we  make  after  we  are  on  the  road  for  which  we 
shall  be  held  responsible.  Not  what  we  do  is 
the  decisive  thing,  but  how  we  do  it.  Whether  a 
man  is  to  be  an  imperialist,  an  individualist,  or  a 
democrat  will  for  the  most  part  be  determined 
for  him.  This  of  itself  will  not  necessarily  decide 
his  ultimate  destiny.  That  will  depend  upon  the 
spirit  in  which  he  meets  his  problems.  It  is  not 
the  path  that  determines  the  issue,  but  the  man 
who  travels  it.  Given  the  same  consecration 
and  sincerity,  each  road  may  lead  to  the  Father's 
House. 

But  the  roads  may  differ  in  length,  and  the 
obstacles  may  not  be  the  same.  To  overlook 
this  fact  would  be  to  misread  our  study,  and  to 
miss  the  lesson.  It  makes  a  difference,  to  myself 
and  to  others,  which  of  these  three  types  of  man 
I  am.  It  makes  a  difference  in  my  relation  to 
God,  and  it  makes  a  difference  in  my  relation 
to  my  fellow-men.  When  we  say  that  our 


THE  UNIFYING  PRINCIPLE  IN  RELIGION  185 


ultimate  choices  are  determined  for  us,  we  do 
not  mean  that  we  should  accept  them  blindly 
or  without  due  appreciation  of  their  significance. 
To  live  at  our  best  we  must  make  our  own  by 
conscious  appropriation  what  birth,  inheritance, 
and  education  have  made  of  us.  We  do  not 
choose  our  country,  but  we  do  decide  what 
citizenship  shall  mean  to  us.  We  may  not  choose 
our  religion,  but  we  should  understand  it.  If  I 
am  to  live  under  the  Stars  and  Stripes,  let  me 
know  what  it  means  to  be  an  American.  So  if 
I  am  to  be  a  member  of  the  Christian  Church,  let 
me  know  what  it  means  to  be  a  Christian.  And  the 
same  is  true  of  each  of  the  types  of  Christianity 
which  we  have  described.  As  an  imperialist 
or  an  individualist,  I  should  know  why  I  am  such 
and  be  able  to  give  my  reasons.  As  a  democrat, 
I  should  have  a  more  convincing  justification 
for  my  position  than  passing  sentiment  or  un¬ 
conscious  imitation.  I  am  not  freest  when  I 
break  away  from  the  path  on  which  my  feet  are 
moving  and  turn  aside  to  follow  my  own  caprice. 
I  am  freest  when  I  see  clearly  the  goal  toward 
which  my  path  is  leading  me,  and  follow  it  because 
it  is  bringing  me  where  I  wish  to  be. 

The  question  why  I  am  any  one  of  the  possible 
types  of  religious  person  is  but  one  form  of  the 
more  fundamental  question  why  I  am  religious 
at  all.  How  do  we  know  that  in  religion  we  have 
real  communion  with  God  ?  What  convinces  us 
that  our  experience  introduces  us  to  objective 
reality  and  that  belief  in  God  is  more  than  a 


186 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


subjective  illusion — a  personification  of  desires 
resulting  inevitably  from  our  unwillingness  to 
accept  our  finite  limitations  ? 

The  question  meets  us  in  a  double  form.  How 
do  we  know  that  there  is  a  God  to  speak  ?  How 
do  we  recognize  Him  when  He  has  spoken  ?  In 
theory  these  two  questions  may  be  distinguished. 
In  life  they  are  inseparable.  One  never  believes 
in  God  in  general,  but  always  in  some  particular 
God  of  whom  one  has  or  hopes  to  have  experience. 
So  far  as  the  imperialist  in  religion  differs  from 
the  individualist  and  the  democrat,  he  differs 
in  his  conception  of  God.  He  thinks  of  God  as 
having  such  and  such  a  purpose  and  as  revealing 
Himself  in  such  and  such  a  way,  whereas  they 
conceive  that  purpose  and  that  revelation 
differently. 

In  determining  why  we  believe  in  God,  then, 
we  are  not  raising  a  different  question  from  the 
question  why  we  are  imperialists  or  democrats. 
We  are  only  bringing  out  the  larger  implications 
of  the  inquiry.  To  justify  my  position  as  a  demo¬ 
crat  in  religion  I  must  be  able  to  show  that  God 
cares  for  every  human  being,  and  has  ways  of 
making  Himself  known  directly  to  each.  To 
prove  my  case  as  an  imperialist  I  must  demon¬ 
strate  that  God's  infallible  revelation  comes  to 
men  only  through  the  Church. 

It  is  not  easy  to  put  into  words  the  reasons 
which  do,  in  fact,  convince  us  that  there  is  a 
God.  We  do  not  win  our  ultimate  convictions 
by  argument.  “  They  spring  not  from  reason, 


THE  UNIFYING  PRINCIPLE  IN  RELIGION  187 


but  deeper  inconsequent  deeps/'  They  are  part 
of  the  capital  we  bring  with  us  into  the  world. 
They  are  the  premises  from  which  all  our  subse¬ 
quent  conclusions  are  drawn. 

How  do  we  know  that  we  exist  ?  that  we 
love  ?  that  we  are  free  ?  that  there  are  other 
persons  with  whom  we  have  intercourse  ?  that 
physical  nature  is  independent  of  our  thought 
of  it,  and  not  a  mere  picture  that  our  mind  paints 
for  us  ?  How  do  we  know  that  truth  exists  ?  or 
goodness  ?  or  beauty  ?  that  there  is  such  a 
thing  as  duty  ?  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as 
honour  ?  We  know  these  things  in  the  same 
way  that  we  know  that  there  is  a  God.  We 
believe  in  each  of  these  ultimate  realities  because 
we  needs  must.  We  find  such  belief  implied  in 
the  life  we  live  day  by  day.  And  the  same  is 
true  of  our  faith  in  God.  We  believe  in  God, 
because  unless  there  is  a  reality  corresponding 
to  our  thought  of  God,  our  world  would  lack 
coherence  and  significance,  and  the  things  we 
do  from  hour  to  hour  would  lose  their  meaning 
and  their  sanction.  Philosophers  have  clothed 
this  elementary  fact  in  learned  language.  They 
have  called  it  the  ontological  argument.  But 
it  comes  to  this  at  last,  that  what  is  essential 
to  the  continuance  of  my  spiritual  life  I  must 
believe  to  exist  if  I  am  to  continue  to  live  in  the 
spirit.  To  the  religious  man  God  is  such  a 
necessity. 

“  Why  do  you  believe  in  God  ?  ”  I  once  asked 
a  clever  woman  of  my  acquaintance.  “You 


188 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


would  not  understand  me  if  I  were  to  tell  you,” 
she  answered.  “  So  far  as  I  know  myself,  I 
have  three  reasons  for  believing  in  God.  The 
light  in  some  people's  eyes  ;  the  sense  of  honour ; 
and  the  joy  which  follows  complete  surrender  to 
a  cause  that  is  greater  than  self.”  I  do  not 
know  that  any  theologian  has  ever  put  the  real 
reasons  for  believing  in  God  more  convincingly. 
We  believe  in  God  because  there  are  experiences  in 
life  at  once  so  arresting  and  so  significant  that 
apart  from  God  it  is  psychologically  impossible  for 
us  to  account  for  them . 

Easier  to  answer,  but  still  difficult  enough,  is 
the  question  how  we  recognize  God  when  He 
speaks.  Three  possibilities  are  open :  i.  We 
may  believe  that  God  has  spoken  because  of 
what  others  tell  us.  2.  We  may  know  that  He 
has  spoken  because  we  ourselves  have  heard 
Him  speak.  3.  We  may  be  confirmed  in  our 
belief  that  He  has  spoken  because  we  have 
obeyed  Him,  and  have  found  our  belief  verified 
by  experience.  We  may  call  these  three  ways 
of  justifying  belief  in  divine  revelation :  (1)  the 
method  of  tradition  ;  (2)  the  method  of  intuition ; 
(3)  the  method  of  experiment.  Imperialists, 
individualists,  and  democrats  use  all  three  of 
these  methods,  but  they  use  them  in  different 
ways  and  arrive  at  different  results. 

Many  people  find  in  what  others  tell  them  a 
sufficient  justification  for  religious  belief.  They 
grow  up  in  a  world  in  which  there  is  faith,  and 
they  accept  the  faith  they  find.  It  never  occurs 


THE  UNIFYING  PRINCIPLE  IN  RELIGION  189 


to  them  to  do  anything  else.  They  may  look  for 
guidance  to  the  Church,  or  to  the  Bible,  or  to 
the  tenets  of  their  own  little  sect  or  community. 
But  whether  it  is  to  be  Church,  or  Bible,  or  creed 
will  be  settled  for  them  by  others.  Whatever 
their  neighbours  accept  as  revelation  they  accept. 
They  are  not  even  aware  of  the  existence  of  an 
alternative. 

If  a  time  comes  when  they  can  no  longer 
evade  the  question  Why  ?  they  may  still  find 
in  tradition  a  sufficient  basis  for  conviction. 
They  may  say,  “It  is  not  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  God  should  expect  me  to  answer  this 
momentous  question  alone.  There  must  be 
some  authority  which  will  relieve  me  of  the 
responsibility.  When  I  have  found  it,  I  will 
commit  my  conscience  to  its  keeping,  and  be 
sure  that  I  am  doing  God's  will." 

By  this  road  they  may  be  led  back  to  the 
conclusion  with  which  they  started,  only  now 
their  conclusion  will  have  deeper  and  more 
personal  significance.  Now  they  believe  in 
authority,  because  it  is  morally  and  intellectually 
satisfying  for  them  to  do  so.  In  Newman  we 
see  an  acute  intellect  accepting  the  principle 
of  tradition  con  amove  and  finding  the  peace 
which  he  seeks.  It  is  the  typical  attitude 
of  the  imperialist  —  the  point  at  which  he 
parts  company  with  the  individualist  and  the 
democrat. 

But  the  question  still  remains,  Where  is  the 
true  tradition  to  be  found  ?  and  here  personal 


190 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


responsibility  cannot  be  evaded.  Before  I  can 
trust  my  Church,  I  must  find  a  Church  to  trust. 
There  are  various  ways  in  which  this  can  be  done. 
I  may  convince  myself  by  logical  arguments  that 
the  true  revelation  is  only  to  be  found  in  such 
and  such  a  place,  because  there  alone  are  to  be 
found  the  marks  by  which  revelation  is  recognized. 
Much  of  historic  theology  consists  in  the  effort 
to  define  what  these  marks  are,  and  to  show 
that  as  a  matter  of  fact  they  are  present  in  the 
institution  or  the  book  to  which  the  character  of 
revelation  is  assigned.  Sometimes  these  marks 
are  found  in  evidences  of  intelligence  in  nature, 
as  in  the  teleological  and  cosmological  arguments  ; 
sometimes  they  are  found  in  the  exceptional  and 
inexplicable  events  we  call  miracles.  More  often 
in  a  combination  of  both.  But  in  each  case  the 
effort  is  to  demonstrate  that  in  the  particular 
concrete  fact  or  facts  with  which  revelation  is 
identified  there  are  present  qualities  which  the 
spirit  cannot  but  recognize  as  evidencing  God's 
presence. 

But  the  argument  forces  us  a  step  further. 
How  can  I  tell  that  this  rather  than  that  is  the 
handiwork  of  God  ?  Whether  my  attention  is 
directed  to  the  orderly  processes  of  nature  or  to 
the  exceptional  events  we  call  miracles,  how  do 
I  know  that  they  point  me  to  God  rather  than 
to  blind  force,  or  impersonal  law  ?  Even  granting 
that  the  occurrence  of  miracle  can  be  established, 
why  is  there  anything  divine  in  miracle  ?  Why 
not  see  in  miracle  mere  chance,  the  proof  that 


THE  UNIFYING  PRINCIPLE  IN  RELIGION  191 


we  have  come  to  a  place  where  reason  breaks 
down,  and  chaos  begins  ? 

There  is  only  one  way  to  meet  this  issue. 
We  must  press  back  of  logic  to  intuition.  If  I 
am  to  infer  God's  presence  from  His  handiwork, 
I  must  know  beforehand  what  kind  of  a  being 
God  is,  and  what  qualities  are  likely  to  reveal 
Him.  You  cannot  take  out  of  your  conclusion 
more  than  you  have  put  into  your  premise.  If 
I  am  to  recognize  God  when  He  speaks,  it  can 
only  be  because  there  is  some  capacity  in  me 
which  fits  me  to  do  so. 

All  truly  religious  people  are  convinced  that 
they  possess  such  a  capacity.  They  not  only 
believe  that  there  is  a  God  ;  they  are  confident 
that  He  can  speak  to  them,  and  that  they  can 
recognize  His  voice.  The  name  we  give  to  this 
inner  response  to  the  divine  communication  is 
intuition.1  It  is  the  one  final  and  convincing 
proof  of  revelation. 

We  commonly  associate  the  use  of  intuition 
in  religion  with  persons  of  mystical  temperament. 
But  it  cannot  be  so  narrowly  confined.2  All 
three  of  the  types  we  have  been  studying  in  these 
lectures  make  large  use  of  intuition.  The  im- 

1  In  choosing  the  word  “  intuition  ”  to  describe  man’s 
immediate  response  to  what  is  apprehended  as  divine,  I  am  not 
using  the  word  in  any  technical  psychological  sense,  but  as  a 
convenient  term  to  describe  any  form  of  experience  of  reality 
which  carries  its  own  conviction  with  it. 

2  On  the  mystical  element  in  belief  in  miracle,  cf.  my  essay, 
“  The  Permanent  Significance  of  Miracle  for  Religion,”  Harvard, 
Theological  Review ,  July  1915,  p.  314  seq. 


192 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


perialist  believes  that  the  visible  Church  is  the 
channel  of  God's  revelation,  because  there  is 
something  in  him  which  this  belief  satisfies. 
The  individualist  knows  that  God  has  saved  his 
soul,  because  he  has  an  inner  peace  which  cannot 
be  explained  in  any  other  way.  The  democrat, 
too,  finds  in  intuition  the  basis  of  his  assurance. 
He  is  confident  that  God  is  speaking  to  others  as 
well  as  to  himself,  because  he  has  heard  what 
they  have  to  tell  him  about  God,  and  his  own  spirit 
answers  to  what  they  say. 

Intuition,  then,  is  common  to  all  forms  of 
vital  religion.1  But  the  use  which  is  made  of 
intuition  differs  widely.  The  mystic  is  sure  that 
he  has  heard  God  speaking.  Yet  he  cannot  tell 
you  what  God  has  said.  No  human  language 
can  describe  an  ineffable  experience.  Each  of 
us  must  entertain  the  divine  visitant  for  himself. 
Other  Christians  can  give  you  a  more  definite 
answer.  They  can  tell  you  where  they  have 
recognized  God’s  voice — in  the  Church  ;  in  the 
Bible  ;  in  the  life-story  of  some  friend,  as  the  case 
may  be.  They  can  recall  what  the  voice  has 
said  to  them,  now  a  word  of  comfort,  now  of 

1  All  our  ultimate  convictions  rest  at  last  upon  intuition. 
It  is  common  to  art  and  to  science.  In  the  last  analysis,  the 
quest  of  truth  appeals  to  some  mystical  sense  in  man,  that  joy 
in  the  immanent  divine  which  is  the  spring  of  the  great  religions. 
Poincare  gives  utterance  to  this  insight  in  his  book  on  Science 
and  Method  (Eng.  trans.,  London,  1914),  when  he  interprets  the 
joy  of  the  mathematician  in  his  most  recondite  calculations  as  a 
form  of  the  quest  of  beauty.  It  is  harmony  in  which  he  takes 
delight,  the  highest  and  the  most  perfect  which  the  mind  can 
apprehend. 


THE  UNIFYING  PRINCIPLE  IN  RELIGION  193 


warning,  now  of  enlightenment,  now  of  forgive- 
ness,  now  of  inspiration.  They  can  point  you  to 
the  place  where  you  too  may  hear  God  for  your¬ 
self,  and  they  can  tell  you  what  you  may  expect 
to  hear. 

But  what  if  the  voices  disagree  ?  In  other 
phases  of  our  experience,  when  faced  with  a 
conflict  of  testimony,  we  have  recourse  to  experi¬ 
ment.  We  follow  the  working  of  each  of  the 
possible  alternatives,  to  ascertain  which  most 
completely  accounts  for  the  facts. 

We  may  do  the  same  in  religion.  Religion, 
as  we  have  seen,  is  not  simply  an  individual 
experience  but  an  historic  process.  We  believe 
that  God  is  the  ruler  of  society  as  well  as  the 
Father  of  individuals  ;  that  Jesus  is  not  only 
personal  Saviour  but  the  founder  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God.  If  this  be  so,  we  ought  to  find  indica¬ 
tions  of  this  fact  in  the  world  about  us.  Our 
faith  should  not  rest  simply  upon  the  satis¬ 
faction  of  our  private  need.  It  should  find 
confirmation  in  God’s  working  in  history. 
Here,  as  in  a  laboratory,  we  may  use  other 
men’s  experience  to  supplement  our  own,  and 
test  the  hypothesis  of  religion  by  co-operative 
experiment.1 

At  this  point  the  individualist  parts  company 
with  the  imperialist  and  the  democrat.  He 
would  confine  his  experiment  with  God  to  what 
his  own  soul  can  compass,  whereas  they  would 

•  >  ■'i 

1  Cf.  W.  Adams  Brown,  The  Essence  of  Christianity ,  New 
York;’ 1902,  pp.  295-309. 

*3 


194 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


enlarge  the  field  of  experiment  to  take  in  other 
men.  The  imperialist  would  have  you  submit 
to  the  Church,  whereas  the  democrat  would  have 
you  trust  the  best  that  is  in  each  man.  Both 
extend  the  test  beyond  the  individual ;  but  the 
kind  of  experiment  to  which  imperialist  and 
democrat  invite  differs  widely.  The  conditions 
which  the  imperialist  lays  down  would  make 
impossible  any  other  test  than  his  own,  whereas 
the  democrat  would  keep  the  field  open  for  the 
trial  of  every  possible  experiment.  His  type  of 
religion  needs  no  such  limitation  as  the  imperialist 
requires.  On  the  contrary,  free  variation  is  of 
its  essence.  To  confine  experiment  within  any 
limits  but  those  which  the  religious  life  itself 
sets  would  rule  out  the  possibilities  in  which  the 
democrat  finds  his  most  inspiring  hope. 

Thus  it  appears  that  the  representatives  of 
each  of  our  three  types  use  all  three  of  the  great 
historic  methods  of  justifying  faith  in  God — 
the  method  of  tradition,  the  method  of  intui¬ 
tion,  the  method  of  experiment.  The  difference 
between  them  is  rather  one  of  emphasis  and  of 
proportion.  The  imperialist  gives  greater  weight 
to  tradition  than  the  individualist  or  the  demo¬ 
crat  ;  the  individualist  lays  most  stress  upon 
intuition  ;  the  democrat  gives  widest  range  to 
experiment.  Yet  each  recognizes  that  the  other 
methods  have  their  place,  and  uses  them  within 
limits. 

But  whatever  weight  the  representatives  of 
these  three  types  of  religion  may  give  to  each  of 


V 


THE  UNIFYING  PRINCIPLE  IN  RELIGION  195 

The  different  elements  in  their  approach  to  God, 
they  agree  in  this,  that  the  final  test  of  religious 
faith  for  the  individual  must  be  its  liberating 
effect  upon  the  spirit.  In  the  type  of  religion 
to  which  each  yields  allegiance,  he  is  conscious 
of  access  to  some  new  spring  of  wisdom,  of  power, 
and  of  joy.  The  imperialist  may  find  God  in 
the  Church,  the  individualist  in  his  own  soul,  the 
democrat  in  fellowship  with  kindred  spirits.  In 
finding  God,  each  finds  life  more  abundant.  To 
each,  religion  is  a  creative  experience.  For  each 
this  creative  experience  carries  with  it  its  own 
evidence  as  to  the  nature  of  religion  and  the 
purpose  of  God.1 


3.  The  Problem  of  Relationship.  Attitudes  ex¬ 
cluded.  Need  of  a  Unifying  Principle  (a) 
for  Self-Criticism,  (b)  for  Social  Verification. 
The  Creative  Experience  as  such  a  Principle 

From  the  question  of  personal  responsibility 
we  pass  to  the  question  of  social  relationships. 
When  we  have  chosen  for  ourselves,  what  follows 
for  our  attitude  to  those  who  have  chosen  differ¬ 
ently  ?  What  shall  we  think  of  them  ?  How 
ought  we  to  feel  toward  them  ?  Above  all, 
how  far  can  we  work  with  them  ? 

1  On  the  Creative  Experience,  cf.  W.  Adams  Brown,  The 
Creative  Experience  an  Intimation  of  Immortality  (London, 
1923).  We  use  the  term  here  in  a  comprehensive  sense  to 
describe  any  form  of  experience  which  releases  fresh  energies, 
and  makes  its  possessor  conscious  of  greater  power,  larger  insight, 
and  deeper  satisfaction. 


196 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


Some  possibilities  are  ruled  out  from  the  start. 
If  what  we  have  been  saying  is  true,  it  will  no 
longer  be  possible  for  us  to  ignore  these  other 
types  of  religious  experience.  The  men  and 
women  who  share  them  must  henceforth  enter 
into  our  world,  and  the  problem  of  our  personal 
religious  life  will  become  in  part  the  problem  how 
we  are  to  relate  ourselves  to  them. 

Nor  can  we  any  longer  be  content  with  a  purely 
negative  attitude  toward  the  views  we  do  not 
share.  We  cannot  say  that  other  men  are  wholly 
wrong  and  that  we  are  wholly  right.  Still  less 
can  we  comfort  ourselves  with  the  thought  that 
different  religious  types  represent  merely  tem¬ 
porary  phases,  which,  having  played  their  part, 
will  pass  away.  If  our  conclusions  have  been 
correct,  three  great  types  at  least  are  recurrent, 
each  appealing  to  something  fundamental  in 
human  nature,  each  winning  its  converts  from 
the  new  generation,  as  the  old  is  passing  away. 
Individuals  here  and  there  may  change ;  the 
types  will  remain. 

One  further  possibility  is  excluded.  We 
cannot  maintain  an  attitude  of  indifference,  as 
if  it  made  no  difference  to  which  type  a  man 
belonged.  The  issues  between  imperialism  and 
democracy  are  real  issues.  They  are  even 
momentous  issues.  It  makes  a  difference,  not 
only  for  the  individual,  but  for  society  which  is 
to  control.  Our  appreciation  of  other  types 
of  religion  must  not  make  us  less  loyal  to  our 
own.  The  unity  after  which  we  aspire  must 


THE  UNIFYING  PRINCIPLE  IN  RELIGION  197 


not  only  be  consistent  with  our  existing  differ¬ 
ences,  but  must  make  possible  intelligent  dis¬ 
crimination  between  them. 

But  is  such  unity  possible  ?  Can  religion 
furnish  any  platform  on  which  we  can  all  alike 
conscientiously  stand,  while  at  the  same  time 
it  gives  us  a  standard  by  which  we  may  sym¬ 
pathetically  appraise  the  differences  which 
divide  us  ? 

In  the  past  such  a  standard  has  been  found 
in  a  commoii  acceptance  of  historic  revelation. 
Men  might  differ  in  their  understanding  of  what 
God's  revelation  meant,  and  where  it  was  to  be 
found.  But  they  were  agreed  that  God  had 
revealed  Himself  in  history,  and  that  the  record 
of  that  revelation  had  been  preserved.  By 
appealing  each  in  his  own  way  to  this  authorita¬ 
tive  standard  they  believed  themselves  able  to 
justify  their  own  position  against  their  opponents. 
Such  an  appeal  was  entirely  natural  and  reason¬ 
able.  If  God  is  to  reveal  Himself  to  persons,  it 
must  be  in  history  ;  for  it  is  in  history  that  the 
individual  contacts  take  place  through  which 
personalities  are  formed.  The  sublimest  utter¬ 
ances  we  possess,  those  which  present  us  with 
truth  of  most  permanent  and  universal  value, 
have  come  to  us  out  of  the  experience  of  in¬ 
dividuals  who  have  preceded  us,  and  in  a  setting 
which  we  can  date.  The  story  of  religion  in  its 
main  outlines  is  the  story  of  its  creative  spirits. 
The  great  man,  the  great  book,  the  great  work 
of  art — through  these  the  successive  generations 


198 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


find  their  best  selves  and  are  trained  to  approach 
God  for  themselves. 

It  is  natural,  then,  that  men  should  turn  for 
confirmation  of  their  present  beliefs  and  practices 
to  the  standards  which  have  maintained  them¬ 
selves  through  the  centuries — the  Bible,  the  creeds 
and  traditions  of  the  Church,  the  Christ  to  whom 
Bible  and  Church  alike  witness.  The  difficulty 
with  this  method  as  hitherto  practised  has  been 
that  the  use  made  of  these  standards  has  been  too 
arbitrary.  They  have  been  interpreted  in  a 
manner  foreign  to  their  genius,  and  used  for 
purposes  for  which  they  were  not  intended. 
Each  has  brought  his  own  presuppositions  to  his 
reading  of  history  and  found  there  the  confirma¬ 
tion  he  sought.  Is  the  appeal  to  the  Bible  ? 
“  Hie  liber  est  in  quo  quaerit  sua  dogmata  quisque.” 
Is  tradition  to  be  the  final  authority  ?  Abelard 
draws  his  deadly  parallel  in  the  “  Sic  et  non  ” 
Thus  what  was  designed  to  unite,  has  proved  in 
fact  divisive.  A  unifying  principle,  to  be  really 
effective,  cannot  stop  with  the  formal  standard 
to  which  men  appeal.  It  must  determine  the  use 
they  make  of  it.  We  must  know  not  only  what 
men  profess  to  believe,  but  why  they  believe  it 
and  what  consequences  follow  from  their  believing. 

Such  a  principle  of  comparison  is  given  us 
in  the  creative  experience.  We  have  seen  that 
this  experience  is  common  to  all  three  types 
of  religion.  Imperialists,  individualists,  and 
democrats  will  tell  you  that  their  choice  has 
made  possible  for  them  a  fuller  life.  It  has 


THE  UNIFYING  PRINCIPLE  IN  RELIGION  199 


liberated  unsuspected  energies  ;  it  has  induced 
enduring  satisfactions.  The  apparent  negations 
of  historic  religion  really  prove  the  rule.  Sacrifice 
is  not  end  but  means.  Renunciation  is  required 
in  order  to  make  possible  a  more  complete 
affirmation.  One  denies  oneself  in  order  to  enjoy 
a  fuller  life. 

But  if  this  principle  of  testing  religion  by  its 
fruits  in  life  be  recognized  as  valid  by  the  advo¬ 
cates  of  each  of  the  contrasted  types  in  their 
estimate  of  their  own  kind  of  religion,  why  may 
it  not  furnish  us  with  the  test  we  need  for  judging 
between  them  ?  Our  answer  to  the  question  how 
far  each  is  socially  desirable  will  be  determined 
by  our  judgment  as  to  how  far  each  is  able  to 
enlarge  and  enrich  the  life  of  those  who  embrace  it 
without  limiting  the  possibility  of  a  similar  enlarge¬ 
ment  and  enrichment  of  life  in  other  persons . 
Religion  must  rely  for  its  ultimate  justification 
not  on  what  it  forbids,  but  on  what  it  brings  to 
pass.  The  unifying  principle  in  religion  is  its 
life-giving  power. 

Yet  though  the  test  is  the  same  in  the  larger 
as  in  the  narrower  experiment,  the  manner  of 
applying  it  will  be  different.  We  are  not  think¬ 
ing  here  simply  of  individual  satisfaction,  im¬ 
portant  and  significant  as  that  is.  We  wish  to 
know  what  is  the  capacity  of  a  type  of  religion 
to  reproduce  itself  in  a  succession  of  experiences 
and  to  create  institutions  which  shall  develop  to 
the  utmost  the  personalities  living  under  them. 
This  is  a  test  which  requires  us  to  take  account 


200 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


of  other  men's  experience  as  well  as  of  our  own, 
and  to  measure  the  effects  of  the  type  we  champion 
by  studying  its  remoter  as  well  as  its  more 
immediate  consequences. 

Such  an  inquiry  is  a  wholesome  corrective 
to  hasty  judgment.  It  is  easy  for  any  one  of  us 
to  be  content  with  a  congenial  type  of  religion 
without  inquiring  what  would  be  its  effect  if 
universally  adopted.  But  we  should  not  stop 
here.  The  democrat  must  ask  himself  how  far  his 
democratic  religion  can  provide  the  satisfactions 
which  others  find  in  imperialism  or  in  individual¬ 
ism.  The  imperialist  must  test  himself  by  his 
ability  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  individualist 
and  the  democrat.  The  individualist  must  come 
to  terms  with  all  those  who  have  found  their 
satisfaction  in  institutional  religion. 

It  is  true  that  the  answer  which  any  individual 
can  give  to  this  question  will  be  limited  by  his 
own  experience.  Any  test  which  is  to  be  really 
adequate  must  be  based  upon  an  induction  of  all 
the  evidence  available.  And  this  requires  co¬ 
operative  study  on  a  far  more  extensive  scale 
than  we  have  hitherto  found  possible.  But  at 
least  we  can  affirm  that  the  attempt  to  measure 
the  value  of  a  religion  by  its  power  to  enlarge  and 
to  enrich  human  life  would  give  us  a  principle 
on  which  men  of  very  different  presuppositions 
could  unite,  and  so  would  make  possible  the 
social  verification  without  which  any  individual 
decision,  however  conscientiously  arrived  at,  must 
be  at  best  provisional. 


THE  UNIFYING  PRINCIPLE  IN  RELIGION  201 


4.  The  Creative  Experience  as  a  Principle  of 
Unity  within  Christianity 

We  may  illustrate  the  way  in  which  emphasis 
upon  the  creative  aspect  of  religion  brings  unity 
into  a  field  where  differences  seem  most  irreduc¬ 
ible,  in  connection  with  a  question  which  has 
caused  much  controversy  in  the  past  —  the 
question,  namely,  what  is  distinctive  in  historical 
Christianity  ? 

Most  of  those  who  will  read  this  book  call 
themselves  Christians.  However  much  we  may 
differ  in  the  details  of  our  faith,  we  stand  in  the 
same  historic  tradition.  We  read  the  same  Bible. 
We  acknowledge  the  same  Master.  We  pray 
the  same  prayer.  In  contrast  to  men  of  other 
faiths,  we  believe  that  in  the  history  through 
which  we  trace  our  spiritual  ancestry,  God  has 
given  us  a  message  of  far-reaching  and  indeed  of 
universal  significance.  It  is  from  Jesus,  not  from 
Gautama  or  from  Mohammed,  that  we  hope  most 
for  the  world’s  salvation.  Yet  when  we  try  to 
point  out  just  what  the  distinctive  message  of 
Christianity  is,  we  find  ourselves  dividing  in  the 
ways  already  described.  Imperialist,  individ¬ 
ualist,  and  democrat — each  defines  Christianity 
in  his  own  way.  The  imperialist  sees  in  Jesus 
the  founder  of  the  Church,  the  incarnate  Word 
whose  divine  human  life  is  perpetuated  in  the 
Sacraments,  the  world  ruler  who  has  committed 
to  Peter  and  his  successors  the  administration 
of  His  authority  and  the  mediation  of  His  grace. 


202 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


The  individualist  sees  in  Him  the  heroic  spirit 
who  dared  to  break  with  the  Church  of  His  day, 
in  order  to  find  His  own  way  to  God.  The  demo¬ 
crat  sees  in  Him  the  friend  of  man  as  man,  the 
discoverer  of  unsuspected  capacities  for  good 
in  the  outcast  and  the  despised,  the  founder  of 
the  better  social  order  we  call  the  Kingdom  of 
God.  For  each,  Christ  is  central.  To  each,  loyalty 
to  Christ  is  the  distinctive  Christian  virtue.  Yet 
loyalty  is  so  conceived  by  each  as  to  separate 
him  from,  rather  than  to  unite  him  with,  his 
fellow-Christians. 

Underlying  this  procedure  is  a  common  pre¬ 
supposition— that  Christianity  is  a  single  change¬ 
less  type  from  which  there  can  be  no  departure. 
Much  learning  has  been  expended  in  the  attempt 
to  define  this  type,  and  many  different  methods 
have  been  used  to  discover  it ;  1  but  common  to 
all  is  the  assumption  that  Christianity  is  something 
uniform  and  changeless — a  dogma,  an  institu¬ 
tion,  a  particular  type  of  conduct  or  experience. 
No  one  of  the  methods  hitherto  used  makes 

1  In  their  search  for  the  distinctive  in  Christianity,  scholars 
have  used  different  methods.  Sometimes  the  origin  of  the  new 
religion  has  been  determining,  and  we  are  told  that  we  should 
eliminate  from  our  definition  of  Christianity  everything  which 
is  the  result  of  later  influence.  Sometimes  the  clue  has  been 
sought  at  the  end  rather  than  in  the  beginning,  and  Christianity 
is  identified  with  what  it  is  coming  to  be.  Or  still  again,  a 
definition  may  be  reached  by  abstracting  from  each  of  the 
different  parallel  forms  whatever  is  distinctive,  and  finding  the 
essence  of  the  religion  in  what  remains. 

When  put  to  the  test,  no  one  of  these  methods  proves 
adequate.  The  method  of  origins  fails  us  ;  for  it  is  only  in  the 


THE  UNIFYING  PRINCIPLE  IN  RELIGION  203 


room  for  the  freedom  and  flexibility  with  which 
history  presents  us,  and  so  their  advocates 
are  forced  to  deny  the  legitimacy  of  types 
which  differ  from  their  own,  or  to  explain  them 
away. 

It  is  evident  that  we  must  approach  our 
problem  from  a  different  angle.  We  are  dealing 
with  something  that  is  alive,  and  we  must  treat 
it  accordingly.  We  cannot  abstract  any  part  of 
a  many-sided  life,  and  treat  it  as  the  whole. 
All  parts  of  Christian  history  are  necessary  to 
the  understanding  of  any  part  of  it — beginning, 
ending,  and  all  that  lies  between.  Yet  this  does 
not  mean  that  all  are  equally  important,  or  equally 
informing.  We  wish  to  discover  the  creative 
element  in  Christianity,  the  thing  that  has  made 
institutions  but  which  no  institution  can  confine, 
which  has  formulated  itself  in  creeds  but  which 
no  creeds  can  express,  the  inner  genius  or  spirit 
which  is  perpetually  reproducing  itself  and  giving 
rise  to  new  creative  activity  in  others.  This 
original  but  at  1  the  same  time  permanent  and 
creative  element  in  Christianity,  most  Christians 

light  of  the  later  history  that  we  can  tell  what  part  of  primitive 
Christianity  was  really  novel  and  creative.  The  method  of  out¬ 
come  fails  us,  for  we  are  not  yet  far  enough  on  in  the  history  of 
our  religion  to  know  what  the  final  issue  will  be.  Least  of  all 
can  we  hope  from  the  method  of  averages.  To  attempt  a  cross- 
section  of  all  the  different  forms  of  historic  Christianity  is  to 
miss  that  which  is  original  in  each.  It  leaves  us  with  a  colourless 
abstraction,  which,  whatever  else  it  may  be,  is  not  the  living 
religion  in  which  men  have  heard  God  speaking  to  them  face  to 
face.  Cf.  W.  Adams  Brown,  The  Essence  of  Christianity :  A 
Study  in  the  History  of  Definition,  New  York,  1902. 


204 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


would  agree,  must  be  found  in  the  personality 
of  its  founder. 

When  we  say  that  Jesus  is  the  distinctive 
element  in  the  Christian  religion,  we  do  not  mean 
that  Christianity  is  simply  the  imitation  of  Jesus. 
Christianity  is  much  more  than  this.  “  Forward 
with  Christ  ”  expresses  its  genius  better  than 
“  Back  to  Jesus.”  We  mean  that  through  all 
the  centuries  Jesus  has  been  the  source  of  new 
creative  experience  in  others.  Contact  with  Him 
has  helped  men  to  see  God  for  themselves.  In 
following  Him  they  have  learned  to  do  things 
for  themselves.  When  Jesus  said  to  His  disciples 
that  they  were  not  only  to  reproduce  His  works, 
but  were  to  do  greater  things  still,  He  gave  fittest 
expression  to  the  spirit  of  His  religion. 

This  new  and  creative  aspect  of  Jesus'  in¬ 
fluence  has  been  expressed  in  the  Church's  faith 
in  the  living  Christ.  In  this  faith  Christians  have 
voiced  their  conviction  that  through  the  lips  of 
this  brother  man,  God  is  speaking  to  them,  and 
in  his  life  they  see  God's  character  and  purpose 
revealed.  But  the  method  in  which  the  con¬ 
fession  has  been  made  is  itself  a  striking  example 
of  the  dual  influence  of  history. 

Rightly  interpreted,  the  doctrine  of  the  living 
Christ  is  a  doctrine  of  freedom.  It  is  the  refusal 
to  confine  God's  witness  to  the  past.  Much 
as  Jesus  meant  to  the  first  disciples,  He  was  to 
mean  more  to  those  who  came  after  Him.  For 
each  new  generation  He  has  had  some  new 
message,  some  fresh  inspiration.  When  the  shell 


THE  UNIFYING  PRINCIPLE  IN  RELIGION  205 


of  the  past  has  pressed  hardest  and  the  deadening 
influence  of  habit  has  robbed  the  older  forms  of 
their  fresh  and  original  meaning,  contact  with 
the  figure  of  Jesus  as  depicted  in  the  Gospels, 
has  opened  new  windows  into  heaven,  and  set 
new  life-currents  coursing  through  men's  veins. 
To  Catholic,  to  Protestant,  to  men  of  other 
religions,  to  men  of  no  faith  at  all,  Jesus  has 
proved  Himself  the  Word  of  God — the  point  of 
contact  between  the  human  and  the  divine. 

When,  however,  this  vital  aspect  of  Jesus' 
personality  has  been  allowed  to  fall  into  the 
background,  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  Deity  has 
had  precisely  the  opposite  effect.  The  shell  has 
pressed  so  hard  that  it  has  stifled  the  life  it  was 
meant  to  protect.  Instead  of  teaching  that  Jesus 
has  set  each  of  us  free  to  seek  God  for  himself, 
theologians  have  explained  the  doctrine  of  Christ's 
Deity  as  meaning  that  it  is  sinful  to  let  our  thought 
of  Jesus  differ  from  the  thoughts  of  other  men 
before  us.  Instead  of  assuring  us  that  God  is 
like  Jesus,  and  therefore  we  can  go  to  Him  freely 
and  boldly,  they  have  told  us  that  since  Jesus 
is  God,  He  cannot  be  the  friendly  human  figure 
the  Gospels  make  Him.  When  one  studies  the 
history  of  dogma,  and  compares  what  it  is  to 
what  it  might  have  been,  one  is  led  to  repeat  the 
cry  of  Mary  at  the  sepulchre,  “  They  have  taken 
away  my  Lord,  and  I  know  not  where  they  have 
laid  Him." 

Yet  while  men's  theories  about  Jesus  have 
divided  them,  their  experience  of  His  influence 


206 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


has  united  them.  The  life  they  owe  to  Him 
brings  them  closer  to  one  another.  The  imperial¬ 
ism  that  takes  Jesus  for  Master  creates  a  finer 
type  of  character  than  other  imperialisms.  Chris¬ 
tian  mystics  owe  a  profounder  experience  to  their 
contact  with  Jesus.  Democratic  Christianity  in¬ 
cludes  unifying  elements  which  are  not  present 
in  other  democracies.  As  we  learn  to  know  the 
different  types  of  Christians  better,  we  are  con¬ 
firmed  in  our  conclusion  that  no  one  type  of 
religion  can  include  all  the  truth  or  do  full  justice 
to  the  beautiful  and  the  good.  Yet  we  are  equally 
convinced  that  there  is  something  in  the  Christian 
religion  which  transcends  these  differences  and 
makes  it  possible  for  men  who  have  felt  the  life- 
giving  influence  of  God's  Spirit  to  respect  and 
to  work  with  one  another.  We  may  still  differ 
in  much  and  feel  bound  to  defend  our  differences, 
but  we  shall  differ  as  fellow-disciples  and  as 
fellow-worshippers. 

What  is  true  of  the  central  figure  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  is  true  of  the  agencies  by  which  His 
influence  has  been  mediated.  Considered  as 
objective  standards,  rules  of  faith  and  conduct, 
the  Church  and  the  Bible  have  proved  divisive. 
Considered  as  creative  influences,  helps  to  a 
richer  and  a  fuller  life,  they  have  proved  unifying. 
We  find  saints  in  all  the  Churches,  and  we  are 
helped  to  understand  the  Bible  by  what  it  has 
meant  to  St.  Francis  and  Pascal,  as  well  as  to 
Calvin  and  Wesley. 


THE  UNIFYING  PRINCIPLE  IN  RELIGION  207 


5.  The  Creative  Experience  as  a  Test  in  the 

Conflict  of  Religions 

If  it  is  difficult  to  tell  what  is  distinctive  in  a 
single  religion,  how  much  more  difficult  is  it  to 
find  the  unifying  principle  in  religion  as  a  whole  ? 
A  study  of  the  creative  element  in  religion  may 
suggest  a  helpful  point  of  approach. 

If  we  review  the  methods  hitherto  used  in 
missionary  apologetic  we  find  ourselves  involved 
in  many  difficulties.  These  difficulties  are  in 
part  due  to  our  own  differences — our  failure  to 
agree  as  to  just  what  Christianity  is,  and  what 
is  the  test  by  which  it  must  be  judged.  But  they 
are  accentuated  by  the  attitude  of  the  people 
to  whom  we  come.  They  are  not  people  without 
religion.  With  negligible  exceptions,  they  have 
traditions  and  institutions  of  their  own.  They 
are  as  conscious  as  we  of  possessing  a  divine 
revelation  ;  differing  as  widely  as  ourselves  in 
the  way  they  interpret  it.  All  the  different 
varieties  of  religion  which  we  have  been  studying 
in  these  pages  meet  us  in  all  the  greater  religions. 
It  is  not  simply  that  we  bring  a  Christianity 
which  is  divided.  We  face  a  Hinduism,  a  Bud¬ 
dhism,  a  Mohammedanism  which  is  divided,  and 
in  part  by  the  same  issues.  If  we  come  to  them 
bringing  our  own  type  of  Christianity — Presby¬ 
terian,  Episcopalian,  Baptist,  they  point  to  other 
Christians  who  do  not  share  ourfviews,  and  ask 
why  one  type  of  Christianity  should  be  preferred. 
If  we  point  out  this  or  that  feature  of  our  religion 


208 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


as  justifying  its  claim  to  be  regarded  as  God's 
final  revelation,  they  present  a  similar  claim  on 
behalf  of  their  own.  The  moral  excellence  of  the 
Biblical  teaching  will  be  admitted  by  the  Con- 
fucianist,  but  he  will  remind  you  that  China  has 
lived  under  the  ethics  of  Confucius  for  two 
thousand  years.  If  we  lay  stress  on  the  super¬ 
natural  features  of  our  religion,  and  emphasize  the 
Christian  doctrines  of  the  incarnation  and  the 
atonement,  the  Buddhist  can  point  to  his  own 
supernaturalism,  and  for  the  single  incarnation 
in  Jesus  Christ,  offers  us  a  continual  succession 
of  Buddhas.  If  we  take  our  stand  on  the 
authority  of  the  Bible  as  a  divine  and  infallible 
book,  the  Mohammedan  has  the  Koran,  which 
claims  an  infallibility  even  greater.  If  in  our 
desire  to  discredit  the  religion  of  our  opponents, 
we  apply  the  process  of  criticism  to  the  standards 
of  their  religion,  they  remind  us  that  critics  have 
been  applying  similar  processes  to  the  study  of 
Christianity  ;  and  we  shall  be  fortunate  if  the 
scepticism  we  succeed  in  evoking  in  their  minds 
can  be  arrested  at  the  point  we  have  marked 
for  it. 

Y et  all  the  time  another  debate  has  been  going 
on,  and  another  test  is  being  applied,  all  the 
more  significant  because  largely  unnoticed.  It 
is  the  test  of  the  creative  experience.  Each 
religion  has  brought  its  contribution  of  insight 
and  of  enlightenment,  of  inspiration  and  of  hope, 
and  men  have  responded  in  the  ways  most  natural 
to  them.  They  have  taken  what  was  helpful, 


THE  UNIFYING  PRINCIPLE  IN  RELIGION  209 


and  let  the  rest  go  by.  They  have  adopted, 
rejected,  modified,  reconstructed,  according  to 
the  urge  of  the  life  within.  The  test  of  the 
relative  strength  of  the  different  religions  has 
been  the  extent  of  their  ability  to  release  the 
creative  energies  of  men.  That  religion  will 
conquer  the  world  which  deserves  to  conquer, 
and  the  proof  of  its  desert  will  be  the  test  to 
which  Jesus  appealed — its  ability  to  produce 
more  abundant  life. 

It  is  encouraging  to  find  that  this  test  is  find¬ 
ing  theoretical  recognition  in  recent  missionary 
literature.  What  men  ought  to  think  of  religion 
is  less  emphasized  than  what  religion  is  actually 
able  to  do  for  men.  What  is  it  in  Christianity 
which  appeals  to  the  Moslem  as  a  fatter  of  fact  ? 
what  repels  him  ?  What,  on  the -other  hand, 
is  there  in  Mohammedanism  to  which  tl>e  Christian 
responds  ?  1  A  debate  carried  on  on  these  lines 
will  uncover  the  real  Issues,  and  with  its  dis¬ 
closure  of  differences  will  reveal  unsuspected 
unities.  Doctrines  that  are  cut  off  from  their 
roots  in  life  are  as  much  a  travesty  of  the  con¬ 
victions  of  living  religion,  as  the  dried  plants 
that  are  preserved  in  our  herbariay  of  the  flowers 
that  bloom  in  our  gardens,  or  the  fossils  that 
we  discover  in  the  rocks,  of  the  trees  under  whose 
shade  we  take  refuge  from  the  sun.  When  we 
touch  the  vital  forces  within  each  of  the  great 
religions,  we  have  a  clue  to  the  true  relation  of 

xCf.  the  suggestive  series  of  articles  on  this  subject  in  the 
International  Review  of  Missions. 

14 


210 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


the  different  religions  to  one  another.  In  the 
measure  that  this  test  is  conscientiously  accepted 
and  systematically  applied,  we  shall  be  in  a 
position  to  make  an  intelligent  estimate  of  the 
place  actually  held  by  our  own  religion  in  the 
conflict  of  religions. 

Some  years  ago  a  theological  teacher  was 
asked  by  one  of  his  class  whether  the  unique 
value  we  Christians  attach  to  the  Bible  was  not 
simply  the  result  of  our  upbringing  ;  whether, 
if  we  had  been  born  in  India  or  in  Japan,  we 
should  not  have  felt  the  same  of  the  sacred  books 
of  Hinduism  or  of  Buddhism  ?  A  young  Japanese 
who  was  a  member  of  the  class  asked  the  privilege 
of  replying.  He  said,  “  The  case  described  was 
my  own.  I  was  converted  to  Christianity  by 
reading  a  copy  of  the  Bible.  I  knew  nothing  of 
Christ  but  what  I  found  in  this  book,  but  when  I 
read  the  Gospels  they  spoke  directly  to  my  soul ; 
and  I  said  to  myself,  ‘  This  is  God's  word  to  me.' 
I  had  no  difficulty  with  the  Christianity  of  the 
Bible.  It  was  only  after  I  met  Christians  that 
my  troubles  began." 

What  is  true  of  the  Christian  book  is  true  of 
all  the  other  agencies  through  which  Christianity 
makes  its  appeal.  The  test  by  which  Christianity 
must  finally  be  judged  is  the  test  of  life.  Most 
of  all  is  this  true  of  the  great  personality  whom  all 
Christians  claim  in  common.  We  shall  persuade 
men  that  Jesus  is  God's  supreme  Word  to  men, 
not  by  insisting  that  they  shall  accept  our  de¬ 
finitions  about  Him,  however  important  and 


THE  UNIFYING  PRINCIPLE  IN  RELIGION  211 


satisfying  they  may  seem  to  us,  but  by  introducing 
them  to  Him,  and  letting  Him  speak  to  them  in 
their  own  language,  as  He  has  spoken  to  us  in  ours. 

6.  Consequences  for  our  Study.  Creative  Elements 
in  Imperialism  and  in  Individualism.  The 
Place  of  the  Creative  Experience  in  Democratic 
Religion.  Democracy  as  the  Religion  of  Hope. 

The  test  which  the  Japanese  student  applied 
to  the  Bible  is  the  test  by  which  the  competing 
types  of  Christianity  must  themselves  be  judged. 
They  must  stand  or  fall  by  their  power  to  enlarge 
and  enrich  life.  So  far  as  any  one  of  the  three 
types  we  have  been  studying  helps  men  to  a 
richer  and  a  fuller  life,  it  is  good  and  ought  to  be 
encouraged  ;  so  far  as  it  narrows  and  impoverishes 
it  is  bad  and  ought  to  be  condemned.  But, 
if  the  test  is  to  be  significant,  it  must  be  applied 
by  each  of  us  consistently  to  his  own  type  of 
religion,  as  well  as  to  those  which  are  unsym¬ 
pathetic.  We  must  not  compare  our  ideal  with 
others’  practice  ;  but  test  ideal  by  ideal,  and 
performance  by  performance. 

Let  us  suppose  that  one  is  a  democrat  in  his 
religion.  As  he  looks  back  over  his  life  he  sees 
that  all  his  experience  has  been  leading  him  in¬ 
evitably  to  this  conclusion.  To  be  a  Christian 
to  him  means  to  be  a  democrat.  This  view  of 
religion  corresponds  most  completely  to  what  he 
finds  in  the  Gospels.  It  sheds  the  brightest  light 
upon  the  dark  pages  of  history.  It  answers 


212 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


the  deepest  needs  of  his  own  soul.  He  thinks 
of  Jesus  as  of  a  friend  who  is  continually  reveal¬ 
ing  the  possibility  of  new  friendships — a  builder 
who  has  set  his  hand  to  a  task  which  cannot  be 
completed  unless  all  of  us  do  our  share.  But 
while  this  is  true  for  him,  he  realizes  that  it  is 
not  true  for  others.  To  them  Jesus  brings  a 
different  message  and  seems  to  point  along  a 
different  path.  He  dares  not  deny  that  the 
Word  which  they  hear  is  God's  Word.  He  is 
not  an  imperialist.  But  he  recognizes  that  the 
imperialist  who  accepts  Jesus  as  his  Master  will 
be  a  different  and  a  better  man  from  one  who  does 
not.  He  is  not  an  individualist.  But  he  is 
sure  that  the  individual  who  makes  Jesus  the 
companion  of  his  solitude  will  find  something  for 
which  Christless  souls  search  in  vain. 

How  far  ought  this  recognition  to  go  ?  Where 
is  the  point  where  appreciation  ought  to  stop 
and  criticism  begin  ?  How  far  can  we  feel  that 
the  work  which  our  fellow-Christians  of  other 
types  are  doing  promotes  the  values  which  to  us 
are  inseparable  from  the  Christian  religion  ?  How 
far  must  we  see  in  that  work  a  menace  which  we 
are  bound  to  resist  ?  I  answer :  so  far  as  that 
work  is  constructive  and  not  destructive  ;  posi¬ 
tive,  not  negative  ;  creative,  not  simply  the  vain 
attempt  to  preserve  the  memory  of  a  life  which 
has  passed  away. 

Tested  by  this  principle  each  of  the  three 
types  we  have  been  studying  has  much  to  say  for 
itself.  Within  limits  each  can  be  justified  by  its 


THE  UNIFYING  PRINCIPLE  IN  RELIGION  213 


work.  Criticism  begins  when — in  the  effort  to 
control  other  lives — a  method  which  has  proved 
useful  and  legitimate  in  its  place  is  used  to  limit 
the  creative  spirit  in  its  present  effort  to  find  new 
forms  of  expression. 

Imperialistic  religion,  when  studied  in  its 
great  historic  examples,  is  seen  to  be  one  of  the 
constructive  forces  in  human  history.  It  has 
been  a  builder  of  institutions,  and  a  teacher  of 
the  men  who  have  lived  under  them.  It  has 
come  to  men  living  in  narrowness  and  isolation, 
and  presented  them  with  an  ideal  which  has 
lifted  them  above  themselves.  In  times  of  de¬ 
pression  and  inertia,  it  has  preserved  the  records 
of  a  past  which  without  its  machinery  of  con¬ 
servation  might  have  perished  for  ever.  It  has 
given  men  world-wide  tasks.  It  has  made 
possible  international  fellowship.  It  has  pro¬ 
vided  discipline  and  happiness  for  those  who  were 
too  weak  to  stand  alone.  And  so  far  as  it  still 
does  these  things,  it  is  good,  and  those  who  give 
their  lives  to  its  service  may  be  welcomed  by  men 
of  other  types  as  comrades  and  fellow-workers. 

But  when  imperialistic  religion  goes  farther 
and  claims  all  life  for  its  field  ;  when  it  denies  to 
the  men  of  to-day  the  initiative  and  freedom 
to  which  it  owes  its  own  origin  ;  when  it  would 
confine  God  within  a  single  channel  and  overlooks 
His  presence  in  men  of  other  types — then  im¬ 
perialistic  religion  becomes  a  menace  ;  and  the 
protest  of  individualist  and  of  democrat  is 
justified. 


214 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


So  we  may  admit  that  individualistic  religion 
has  much  to  say  for  itself.  Tested  by  our  prin¬ 
ciple  of  the  creative  experience,  it  has  vastly 
enlarged  and  enriched  human  life.  This  is  true 
not  only  of  the  individual  men  and  women  who, 
in  order  to  fulfil  their  personal  destiny,  have 
broken  away  from  the  crowd  to  live  their  life  in 
privacy.  It  is  true  no  less  of  the  larger  company 
who  have  become  the  beneficiaries  of  their  in¬ 
sight.  All  God's  greatest  words  to  men  have 
been  spoken  first  to  some  one  man  ;  and  Jesus — 
the  friend  of  man — found  that  He  could  not  fulfil 
His  social  mission  unless  He  replenished  His 
soul  through  solitary  hours  alone  with  His  Father. 

So  far  as  it  makes  possible  the  larger  life, 
then,  individualistic  religion  is  good,  and  place 
must  be  made  for  it  in  our  religious  philosophy. 
But  when  the  individualist  makes  his  own  life 
the  standard  for  all  others,  he  ceases  to  be  con¬ 
structive,  and  becomes  a  hampering  influence. 
He  impoverishes  himself,  for  he  loses  the  new 
word  which  God  might  speak  to  him  through  his 
neighbour.  He  impoverishes  others ;  for  by  so 
much  as  he  reduces  his  own  stature,  he  limits  his 
power  to  do  for  them. 

This  insight  explains  and  justifies  the  demo¬ 
cratic  experiment.  Democracy  is  the  attempt 
to  break  free  from  the  limits  which  imperialist 
and  individualist  have  set  to  the  possibilities  of 
new  experience.  The  democrat  is  not  willing 
to  confine  God's  Spirit  within  a  single  channel. 
He  gladly  admits  that  men  may  find  God  in 


THE  UNIFYING  PRINCIPLE  IN  RELIGION  215 


other  than  the  democratic  way.  But  he  is  con¬ 
vinced  that  his  method  makes  possible  the 
largest  number  of  contacts,  and  so  the  most 
enlightening  experience.  Much  as  we  may  have 
received  from  God  in  the  past,  the  democrat 
expects  that  the  future  will  be  richer  still.  To 
discover  and  to  appropriate  the  as-yet-unrealized 
good  is  the  task  of  the  religion  of  democracy. 

But  democrats,  too,  need  to  be  tested  by  their 
own  principle.  They,  too,  stand  or  fall  by  their 
ability  to  enlarge  and  to  enrich  life.  It  is  not 
enough  to  criticize.  We  must  construct,  and 
this  not  simply  within  the  limits  which  are  con¬ 
genial  to  us — among  the  circles  of  our  family,  our 
community,  our  personal  friends — but  in  the 
great  world  which  imperialism  claims  for  its 
field,  and  among  backward  and  undisciplined 
peoples. 

It  is  to  be  feared  that  not  all  democrats  have 
faced  the  seriousness  of  this  test.  Much  so-called 
democracy  is  parlour  democracy.  Its  advocates 
have  not  visualized  the  real  task,  or  measured 
the  obstacles  to  be  overcome  before  the  demo¬ 
cratic  ideal  can  be  realized.  Imperialistic  religion 
asks,  at  most,  loyalty  to  an  institution.  The 
field  of  the  individualist's  conflict  is  his  own 
soul.  But  democratic  religion  tests  progress  by 
what  goes  on  in  all  other  lives.  What  infinite 
patience,  what  more  than  human  sympathy  is 
required  if  we  are  really  to  care  for  the  undeveloped 
personalities  all  about  us,  and  to  find  in  their 
progress  and  final  victory  our  highest  reward. 


216 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


And  when  the  sympathy  extends  beyond  one's 
own  country  and  race  and  takes  in  man  as  man, 
the  test  becomes  harder  still. 

On  faith  as  well  as  on  works  democratic 
religion  makes  heavy  demands.  To  win  a  living 
faith  is  never  easy.  We  have  seen  how  the  sense 
of  individual  weakness  has  driven  men  to  seek 
security  in  the  Church,  and  how  the  protest 
of  conscience  against  the  Church  has  forced 
earnest  spirits  back  upon  themselves.  But  the 
democrat  in  religion  must  find  God  everywhere, 
and  point  to  common  men  and  women  as  the  most 
conclusive  evidence  of  His  presence.  His  faith 
requires  him  to  believe  that  God  is  making  out 
of  humanity  as  we  see  it  to-day — stumbling, 
blundering,  short-sighted,  narrow-minded  men 
and  women — the  Christian  commonwealth  of  his 
dreams.  Imperialism  demands  the  surrender  of 
freedom.  Individualism  must  abandon  the  hope 
of  unity.  Democratic  religion,  could  it  be 
realized,  would  conserve  both. 

There  are  men  and  women  who  believe  that 
this  realization  is  possible,  more  to-day  than  there 
have  ever  been.  And  wherever  this  belief  is 
living  and  active  it  has  worked  beneficent  trans¬ 
formations.  We  have  seen  this  faith  at  work 
in  our  science,  in  our  education,  in  our  philan¬ 
thropy,  in  our  industry.  It  enlarges  the  range 
of  friendship.  It  is  the  inspiration  of  modern 
missions.  From  it  springs  much  that  is  best  in 
the  life  of  the  Church.  But  there  are  wide  areas 
of  our  life — even  of  our  religious  life — which 


THE  UNIFYING  PRINCIPLE  IN  RELIGION  217 


have  thus  far  been  inaccessible  to  the  demo¬ 
cratic  appeal.  Is  this  resistance  permanently  to 
continue,  or  will  democratic  religion  reveal  a 
constructive  power  adequate  to  the  tasks  which 
imperialism  alone  has  thus  far  been  able  to  dis¬ 
charge  ?  That  is  for  the  future  to  decide.  It 
is  enough  if  those  of  us  who  hold  the  democratic 
faith  do  our  part  in  the  present  to  make  that  better 
future  possible. 

In  what  were  perhaps  his  last  printed  words 
about  democracy,  that  great  democrat,  Viscount 
Bryce,  sums  up  his  conclusions  as  follows  : 

“  Hope,  often  disappointed  but  always  re¬ 
newed,  is  the  anchor  by  which  the  ship  that  carries 
democracy  will  ride  out  this  latest  storm,  as  it 
has  ridden  out  many  storms  before.  There  is  an 
Eastern  story  of  a  King  with  an  uncertain  temper 
who  desired  his  astrologer  to  discover  from  the 
stars  when  his  death  would  come.  The  astrologer, 
having  cast  his  horoscope,  replied  that  he  could 
not  find  the  date,  but  had  ascertained  only  this, 
that  the  King's  death  would  follow  immediately 
on  his  own.  So  it  may  be  said  that  democracy 
will  never  perish  till  after  hope  has  expired."  1 

It  is  because  we  believe  in  this  better  future 
and  are  trying  to  realize  it  that  we  call  ourselves 
Christians.  Of  all  existing  religions,  Christianity 
has  most  to  give  the  democrat.  Mohammed 
commits  us  to  imperialistic  religion.  The  em¬ 
phasis  of  the  Buddha  is  predominantly  on  the 
individual.  Only  the  religion  of  Jesus  has  room 

1  Modern  Democracies ,  London,  1922,  vol.  ii.  p.  670. 


218 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


enough  for  democracy.  It  has  something  for 
the  individual — for  each  the  inspiration  and 
assurance  he  most  needs.  It  has  something  for 
all  of  us  together — a  fellowship  of  the  spirit  more 
inclusive  than  any  other  known  to  man.  It  has 
faith  and  comradeship.  It  has  the  forward  look. 
Christianity  is  not  yet  the  religion  of  democracy. 
But  of  all  existing  religions,  it  has  the  best  fighting 
chance  to  become  so. 


INDEX 


Abelard,  198. 

Addams,  Miss  Jane,  142. 

Adler,  Dr.  Felix,  42,  44. 
Alexander  Nevsky  convent,  13. 
American  Christianity,  4. 

,,  Southern  Baptist,  128. 
Ames,  23. 

Anglican  creed,  69. 

Anglicans,  4,  6. 

Anglo-Catholic,  128. 

Arminians,  127. 

Arnobius,  40,  44. 

Aryan  religions,  5. 

Atonement,  67. 

Augustine,  7,  22. 

Austin,  Mary,  105. 

Authority,  religious,  in  Roman 
Catholicism,  66-68  ;  in  Pro¬ 
testantism,  122,  123. 

Avila,  1 15. 

Baptists,  3,  128,  207. 

Baur,  17. 

Begbie,  Harold,  104. 

Benedict  of  Nursia,  7,  75,  120. 
Bernard,  St.,  7. 

Bible,  12,  62,  122,  154,  155,  198, 
201,  206,  210. 

Boniface,  7. 

Booth,  General,  54. 

Broad  Churchmen,  10. 

Brown,  William  Adams,  16,  59, 
138,  191,  193,  195. 

Buddhism,  5,  54,  56,  109,  169, 
207,  208,  210,  217. 

Bushnell,  Horace,  104. 

Bryce,  Viscount,  217. 

Caesar,  88. 

Calvin,  116,  171. 

Calvinism,  116,  155. 

Calvinists,  127. 

Canossa,  65. 

Catharine  of  Genda,  St.,  113. 


Catholicism,  9,  17,  115.  See  also 
Roman  Catholicism. 

Catholic  Church,  10;  as  mediator 
between  God  and  man,  64-71  ; 
as  regulator  of  belief,  71-74  ; 
as  director  of  the  conscience, 
75-79  ;  as  confraternity  of 
service,  79-83. 

Catholic  creed,  69. 

,,  theology,  79. 

Census  of  1916,  10. 

Ceremonial  religion,  49-53,  79. 

Charity,  80. 

Christian  doctrine,  17. 

,,  Science,  105. 

Christianity,  5,  12,  54,  56,  201, 
207 ;  what  is  distinctive  in,  202. 
See  also  Greek  Christianity, 
Roman  Christianity,  Protestant 
Christianity. 

Church,  9,  68,  78,  79,  97,  102,  103, 
206  ;  the  fivefold  function  of, 
53-58  ;  of  the  future,  177,  178. 

Church  and  State,  4. 

Classification  of  religions,  prob¬ 
lem  of,  1-8  ;  as  true  and  false, 
12-14  ;  as  steps  in  devel¬ 
opment  of  religion,  14-18  ; 
psychological,  18-26  ;  social, 
18-22,  26  ;  a  suggested  classi¬ 
fication,  26-33. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  6. 

Coe,  23,  26. 

Compromise,  92. 

Confessional,  76,  77. 

Confucianism,  169. 

Confucius,  208. 

Congregation  of  the  Propaganda, 
82. 

Copenhagen,  3,  4. 

Cosmological  argument,  190. 

Creative  experience,  195  ;  creative 
elements  in  religion,  58  ;  in 
imperialism,  213 ;  in  individ- 


219 


220 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


ualism,  214 ;  in  democracy, 
214,  215. 

Creed,  69,  198. 

Cyprian,  7. 

Dante,  77,  152. 

Deity  of  Christ,  205. 

Democracy,  28,  32,  34,  36,  181  ; 
as  a  type  of  religion,  28,  36, 
136-178,  especially  147  ;  de¬ 
fined,  136-138,  143  ;  in  con¬ 

trast  to  individualism,  98  ; 
to  individualism  and  im¬ 
perialism,  148-155  ;  distin¬ 
guished  from  the  religion  of 
equality,  144  ;  from  the  rule 
of  the  majority,  145  ;  pluralistic 
misconception  of,  148  ;  psycho¬ 
logical  basis  of,  149  ;  outside 
the  Churches,  156-166  ;  in 
science,  158-160  ;  in  educa¬ 
tion,  160,  1 61  ;  in  philan¬ 

thropy,  1 61,  162  ;  in  industry, 
163,  164  ;  in  politics,  165  ;  in 
the  churches,  166-172  ;  institu¬ 
tional  expression  of,  172-178. 

Denominationalism,  4,  129,  171. 

Dewey,  161. 

Dominic,  St.,  121. 

Dominicans,  75. 

Dort,  Synod  of,  127. 

Drinkwater,  John,  87. 

Dyaks  of  Borneo,  74. 

Education,  religious  element  in, 
1 61  ;  popular,  174. 

Edwards,  Jonathan,  22,  116. 

Episcopalians,  3,  207. 

Erasmus,  98. 

Ethical  religion,  17,  49,  79. 

Evangelical  Protestantism,  107- 
109. 

Evangelicals,  10. 

Experiment,  place  of,  in  religion, 
193,  194- 

Extravert,  30. 

Federation,  173,  178. 

F6nelon,  7. 

Francis,  St.,  7,  54,  12 1,  206. 

Franciscans,  75. 

Friends,  56,  155,  182. 

Gautama,  60,  217. 

Geneva,  154. 


Gerard,  98. 

Germany,  modern,  as  an  example 
of  imperialistic  religion,  84,  85, 
86,  91. 

God,  1,  8,  13,  39-45,  67,  97  5  as 
ruler  of  society,  193  ;  as  judge, 
106  ;  reasons  for  believing  in, 
185-195. 

Greek  Catholicism,  4,  20,  76. 

,,  Christianity,  13,  20,  137. 

,,  Church,  4,  11,  12,  13. 

,,  philosophy,  66. 

Grenfell,  Wilfred,  139,  140,  171. 

Hall,  Stanley,  23. 

Harnack,  19,  20,  137. 

Hauter,  29,  134. 

Heaven,  78,  152. 

Hebrews,  Epistle  to  the,  40. 

Hegel,  6,  16. 

Hegelian  method,  16. 

Heiler,  66,  78. 

Henley,  no. 

Plenotheism,  17. 

Henry,  O.,  183. 

Herder,  16. 

Herrmann,  115. 

High  Churchmen,  10. 

Hildebrand,  7. 

Hinduism,  207,  210. 

History,  double  function  of,  62. 
Hobson,  157. 

Hocking,  59,  132. 

Hiigel,  Baron  von,  113. 
Humanitarianism,  7. 

Ideals,  44,  45. 

Ignatius  Loyola,  54,  75,  88,  121. 
Imperialism,  27,  32,  34,  35,  181  ; 
as  a  type  of  religion,  27,  28, 

35,  64-94  ;  not  identical 
with  Roman  Catholicism,  66  ; 
motives  to  which  it  appeals, 
87-92  ;  strength  and  weakness 
of,  92-94. 

Incarnation,  67. 

Index,  82. 

Individualism,  27,  28,  32,  34,  35, 

36,  96  ;  as  a  type  of  religion, 

27.  35,  36,  96-135,  181  ; 

negative,  98,  102,  103  ;  evan¬ 
gelical  Protestantism  as  an 
example  of,  106-109; 
Buddhism  as  an  example 
of,  109,  no ;  positive,  98  ; 


INDEX 


221 


mysticism  as  an  example  of, 
hi  ;  its  strength  and  its 
weakness,  1 29-1 31  ;  its  psycho¬ 
logical  basis,  1 31-133. 

Infallibility,  90. 

Inge,  Dean,  85,  142,  146. 

Innocent,  7. 

Inquisition,  82. 

Institutions,  as  the  shells  of 
religion,  38  ;  their  function,  61. 

Intuition,  191,  192,  194. 

Introvert,  30. 

Islam,  14,  84,  169. 

James,  William,  23,  25,  96,  103, 
104,  105,  hi,  113,  158. 

Japan,  84. 

Jesus  Christ,  7,  8,  107,  198,  201, 
204,  205,  206,  209  ;  the  heir  of 
the  prophets,  60  ;  the  founder 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  193  ; 
the  Word  of  God,  205  ;  the 
distinctive  principle  in  Christi¬ 
anity,  201  ;  different  inter¬ 
pretations  of,  62,  63,  201, 

202. 

Jesus,  the  Society  of,  74,  75,  82, 
121. 

Jews,  46. 

John  of  the  Cross,  St.,  114. 

Judaism,  60. 

Jung,  24,  30. 

Justin  Martyr,  6. 

Kempis,  Thomas  a,  7. 

Kidd,  Benjamin,  37. 

Knox,  1 71. 

Koran,  208. 

Labour  Party,  English,  165. 

Labrador,  139. 

Lambeth  Conference,  170. 

Lasserre,  Henri,  73. 

Law,  William,  7. 

Legalistic  religion,  46. 

Leo  xiil.,  80. 

Lessing,  16. 

Leuba,  23. 

London  Deep  Sea  Mission,  139. 

Lord’s  Supper,  127. 

Lourdes,  Virgin  of,  73. 

Low  Churchmen,  10. 

Loyola,  54,  75,  88,  121. 

Luther,  103,  122,  124,  127. 

Lutheranism,  155. 


Macaulay,  68. 

McGiffert,  A.  C.,  6,  7. 

Manning,  Cardinal,  88. 
Methodism,  122. 

Meynell,  Alice,  150. 

Micah,  57. 

Miracles,  190,  191. 

Missionary  motive,  148. 

Missions,  foreign,  154,  168,  169. 
Modernism,  21,  91. 

Modernist  movement,  91. 
Modernists,  2,  10. 

Mohammed,  60,  201,  217. 
Mohammedanism,  14,  54,  56,  207, 
209. 

Monastery,  as  social  expression  of 
individualistic  religion,  118- 
121. 

Monasticism,  120. 

Monotheism,  17. 

Montefiore,  46. 

Moral  theology,  79. 

More,  Sir  Thomas,  68. 

Moscow,  11. 

Mystical  experience,  25,  90  ;  diff¬ 
erent  types  of,  1 1 2,  1 1 3. 
,,  religion,  21,  46,  191. 
Mysticism,  11,  105,  110-116  ;  the 
term  defined,  112. 

Napoleon,  88. 

Natural  religion,  17. 

New  Theology,  167. 

Newman,  Cardinal,  68,  82,  90. 
Nirvana,  109,  no,  118. 

Ontological  argument,  187. 
Osborne,  Thomas,  163. 

Page,  Walter,  144. 

Pantheism,  17. 

Papal  Syllabus  of  errors,  72. 
Paradise,  14,  153. 

Pascal,  206. 

Paul,  St.,  6. 

Paulist  Fathers,  76. 

Pelagius,  6. 

Penitential  system  of  Roman 
Church,  75-78. 

Poincare,  192. 

Polytheism,  17. 

Pope,  65,  72,  90. 

Post,  Dr.,  1 41. 

Pratt,  23,  26. 

Premillenarianism,  87. 


222 


IMPERIALISTIC  RELIGION 


Presbyterianism,  171. 

Presbyterians,  3,  4,  207. 

Priesthood,  55. 

Primitive  Christianity,  66. 

Private  judgment,  go. 

Progress,  place  of,  in  democracy, 
145- 

Propaganda,  as  a  churchly 
function,  57  ;  Society  of  the, 
82. 

Protestantism,  2,  9,  10,  17,  20, 
1 15,  121,  122  ;  evangelical,  106- 
109  ;  the  unresolved  antinomy 
in,  134  ;  the  missionary  spirit 
in,  168. 

Psychological  approach  to  re¬ 
ligion,  22-26. 

„  classifications  of 

religion,  18-26. 

Psychology  of  religion,  22. 

Purgatory,  78. 

Puritans,  116,  118. 

Reade,  Charles,  98. 

Reformation,  20. 

Religion,  11  ;  as  personal  ex¬ 
perience  and  as  historic  process, 
37-63  ;  true  and  false,  12-14  5 
the  Hegelian  view  of,  14-17  ; 
as  personal  relationship,  41  ; 
legalistic  and  mystical,  45- 
48  ;  ceremonial  and  ethical, 
48-53  ;  place  of  the  Church  in, 
53-58  ;  the  creative  element  in, 
58-63. 

Religious  experience,  21,  25. 

Renunciation,  199. 

Representation,  172. 

Revelation,  the  problem  of,  8  ; 
historic,  as  a  principle  of  unity, 
197- 

Revolutionary  Socialism,  86. 

Richard,  Timothy,  141. 

Ritschl,  91, 

Roman  Catholicism,  4,  6,  20,  137  ; 
as  an  example  of  imperialistic 
religion,  65,  66 ;  its  many- 

sidedness,  89,  90  ;  demo¬ 

cratic  elements  in,  1 50-1 52; 
attitude  to  those  outside  the 
Church,  153  ;  to  the  mystical 
experience,  115.  See  also 
Catholicism,  Catholic  Church. 

Rome,  as  an  example  of  State 
religion,  84. 


Rousseau,  86. 

Russia,  6,  11,  13. 

Sabatier,  20,  28,  137. 

Sacrament,  Sacraments,  52,  53, 
70,  81,  151,  155. 

Sacramentarianism,  10,  52,  53,  66  ; 
not  the  same  as  imperialistic 
religion,  89. 

Schleiermacher,  22. 

Science,  the  democratic  spirit  in, 
158-160. 

Scotland,  154. 

Scotus  Erigena,  6. 

Sect,  meaning  of  term,  125,  126. 
Sectarianism,  83  ;  as  a  compro¬ 
mise  between  individualism  and 
imperialism,  1 25-1 29,  182  ;  dis¬ 
tinguished  from  denomina- 
tionalism,  129,  171. 

Semitic  religions,  5. 

Settlement  movement,  161. 
Shelley,  42. 

Shinto,  84. 

Sin,  penalty  of,  77. 

Social  classifications  of  religion, 
19-26. 

,,  Gospel,  169,  170. 

„  institutions,  26. 

,,  religion,  25,  26,  124. 
Socialism,  revolutionary,  86. 
Socinus,  6. 

Solitude,  131. 

Stable  type,  in  religion,  30 ; 

extravert,  30  ;  introvert,  30. 
Starbuck,  23. 

State,  the  religion  of  the,  83-87. 
Static  religion,  31. 

Stratton,  23. 

Synod  of  Dort,  127. 

Tansley,  24,  30. 

Tawney,  R.  H.,  164. 

Teleological  argument,  190. 
Theology,  the  New,  167. 

Theresa,  St.,  114. 

Thomas  a  Kempis,  7. 

Thompson,  Francis,  150. 

Tiele,  5. 

Tradition,  189,  194. 
Traditionalists,  10. 
Transubstantiation,  69. 

Trinity,  6,  67,  68. 

Troeltsch,  20,  21,  28,  125,  126. 


INDEX 


223 


Trotter,  30. 

Types,  religious,  1,  30. 

Tyrrell,  George,  71. 

Ultramontane,  65. 

Unifying  principle  in  religion, 
179-218. 

Unitarians,  3. 

United  States,  10. 

Unity,  Christian,  170. 

Unstable  type,  in  religion,  30 ; 
extravert,  30  ;  introvert,  30. 


Variation,  problem  of,  in  religion, 
i-33. 

Wesley,  54. 

World  Alliance  for  International 
Friendship  through  the 
Churches,  3. 

Worship,  55  ;  Roman  Catholic, 
66  ;  Protestant,  123. 

Zwingli,  127. 


» 

. 


■ 


♦ 


. 


F 


Date  Due 

ACUI  TV 

. 

#  i  ^  u  L;  J  f 

<f> 

